Rubbish. It was certainly the most prominent calyst, but it was far from the only one. f you want to continue with your HS history that's fine. Yeah, go ahead, Lincoln freed the slaves because he was agreat man who wanted social justice too. There was more to it than just slavery. The relative rights of states and the federal government was a contentious point from the moment that the first person began to think of revolting against English rule. Lincoln fought to preserve the union. Your argument corresponds to the First World War happened because Archduke Ferdinand was killed. Thanks for your charity. Many of the states that seceded had relatively low slave populations as well. So what? Look at your sources and see how many in the north were willing to fight against slavery as opposed to those who were willing to fight to preserve the Union. Wrong again. Va was not the only state to have these types of issues. NC did as well, and for very similar reasons. As to why they would agree- I should think it would be obvious- look at a map. The populated area of West Virginia is much closer to Columbus than Richmond in terms of travel, and that's just one good reason.
Yeah, high school history, that must be it. That's as far as I've gotten in my slavery research. Right. Not post-graduate courses. No sirree Bob. Your argument makes no sense, frankly, especially since you keep presenting superficial causes to make fun of it. Slavery was the underlying cause, PERIOD. The "states rights" issues only came up when certain groups were unhappy with the government's direction. No one ever secedes on the principle that they should have the right to do so. That's idiotic. Who ever moved out of an apartment they were happy with because they weren't allowed to move out? Not accurate and not the point, besides. What difference does this make? That's a terrible conflation of the issue. I don't care what the northern soldiers thought they were fighting for. (Well, not in this context, anyway.) What matters is why the war started. And that's slavery. Have you read the constitutional debates in Virginia? I have. And "distance to Richmond" had nothing to do with it. West Virginia was largely agrarian but non-slave based. They resented the extra voting privileges eastern Virginia got as well as the taxation breaks they got for owning slaves through various means. They came close to secession in 1830 on the issue of slavery already.
Well, they re-visited in 1992 in the Casey decision. Is that close enough to 2005 for you? Well which is it? All unborn....or are you just on about partial birth?
Oh wow, post graduate courses. I'll just shut my trap then. Take all the courses you want. This debate is about analysis- which you are showing a marked lack of ability at. This is categorically untrue, and you know it. State's rights were critical issues in shaping all of the foundatio documents from the Declaration od Independence to the Constitution itself. I know with all of the reading you have done you have read both the federalist and the anti-federalist papers. Do you really want to pretend that all they were talking about was slavery? Do you read YOUR OWN posts? You said "Delaware Maryland and Missouri had no slave culture and certainly weren't a bit plantation center. Slavery wasn't a key issue to them. Kentucky had a low percentage of slaves as well." and then you say that my pointing out that some of the states that did secede had a low percentage population too is inaccurate and off point? The point is they did not think they were fighting slavery and would not have gone to war over it. For a smart guy, you seem to need small words a lot. As were most of the mountain counties in most of the southern states. Try this, correlate farm size to number of slaves. Ooh, big surprise!! Large farms had lots of slaves, small farms had few. West Virginia had LOTS of reasons to feel that it should not stay with Virginia or the South. Again, to sum up, Slavery was a critically important, catalytic issue BUT it was not the only issue. Interestingly, the gun debates of today tend to break along very similar lines. Rural, agrarian areas tend to support wide gun rights, whereas industrial, urban areas tend to be more for gun control. Do you see any parallels here? Can you extrapolate why this might be?
This "What Caused the Civil War" debate is too much of a side topic and both sides are lacking some foundations in historical analysis since there's no such thing as one cause. Anyway, to btousley's point: I don't have a problem with a court revisiting an issue in light of new scientific developments. I think it'd be a wierd justification for revisiting the issue given the "original intent" foundation of most "conservative" leaning jurists. But, even if you take into account new technology, you still have to discuss the due process rights of the woman to control her own body. Maybe you draw the line somewhere different, but what the anti-Roe people want is not a discussion of where the line is, but to toss out entirely the legal concept that a person has a fundamental right to control over their body. I'm not sure technology has changed that issue.
I'll stop with the thread hijack now. How a Rehnquist thread ended up talking about the causes of the War of Southern Independence I don't know. Anyway, are there any good rumors about Rehnquist today?
My fault for positing that a "pro-states rights" poster was trying to turn back the clock....pre-1860.
I'm suprised no one mentioned this, but I heard that on a Sunday news show, Senator Specter from PA said he'd support Justice O'Connor as nominee for Chief Justice, should Rehnquist resign. Which, I have to say, just sorta confused me all over again. Other than that, the rumor mill is quiet in my neck of the woods.
no it is not close enough to 2005 and yes it is all unborn - my sarcasm was meant to compare PBA to the London bombing. Sticking a needle through the scull of a fetus with active brain wave activity I find barbaric. They cannot defend themselves anymore than those poor passengers stuck down in the Tube.
let's be serious - many of us that are anti-Roe based largely on moral grounds - probably would not care if it was based on medical or due process (fetus or the mothers) justification - as long as it was overturned (I am honest enough to state it). Oh - I will match your fundamental right to control your body with a fundamental right to a fetus being allowed to live ..... "this is the song that never ends" ..... Medical technology is evolving rapidly - whether it is enough to cause the SCOTUS to revisit Roe is another big question.
I'm going to take it from your posts that you don't actually have any interest in the legal issues involved. One way I know this is that if you really thought you were "matching" my fundamental right, you would have dealt with the complete absence in the law of a first or second trimester fetus being treated as a human being.
First, I think you threaten to make yourself look more like an ass than you intend when you dance on corpses like this. Second, I already noted that you don't really care about the law, because otherwise you would have explained how allowing "PBAs" to save the life of the mother (as Supreme Court precedent would require) was equally barbaric to blowing innocent civilians up.
I'll stop the threadjack (the point of which you're still bizarrely missing), but I will point out that you accusing me of doing "HS history" then pitching a fit over my CV is frankly insulting. I don't know what it is you do, but I don't accuse you of doing it on a high school level.
and that is precisely where the advancement in medical technology of understanding brain wave activity and the viability of a fetus surviving with or without medical assistance. yes - I have some interest in the legal issues - but Roe vs. Wade (IMHO) was never about due process and rights - at its core it was all about feminism and power.
I know you are more intelligent than that to assume that the motivation of PBAs is to save the life of the mother .... You need to think deeper about the real motivation for a PBA ..... "dance on corpses" huh? - so you doubt that PBA is barbaric? Both the bombings and PBAs are barbaric. The motivations behind the groups that endorse both are equally repugnant and evil.
Obviously my view - in the case of rape and incest - it is the decision of the mother/victim ...... was the fetus/child at fault for what occurred? - no - only that woman/victim can determine the lesser of two evils in that particular case - no one else can. To save the life of the mother - yes - but generally leave that to the mother if conscious also.
I'm glad....this is coming from a former conservative. By the way, I'm anti-abortion. Only to save the mother's life and in cases of incest/rape. Go easy on me.
*sigh* Check yourself in the mirror, Catfish. You're prochoice, in the actual real sense of the word where you do believe women have the ability to make the decision whether or not to continue a pregnancy... with some restrictions, like only in cases of rape, incest or the health of the woman. That's still a choice. While personally not the full range of options I would support, those aren't the words of a strict anti-choicer.