Stephen Douglas 1860
I am a Catholic and I am anti-slavery. I deplore slavery and have been an active part of the abolitionist movement. But this November of the year of Our Lord 1860 I am voting for Stephen A. Douglas.
Now I know my announcement will befuddle many Catholics who think that Abraham Lincoln is the only possible choice if you are truly as anti-slavery as I say I am. Some of my friends ask me how can I possibly support Senator Douglas when he was largely responsible for the Compromise of 1850 and supported the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision of 1857?
Though Senator Douglas does not regard a slaveholding society as one whit inferior to a free society I think he is the best choice to reduce slavery. The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 proves that he is pro-choice on the issue of slavery since the act allowed these new states coming into the union to make up their own mind as to whether slavery should be allowed in their territory. He lets the people in the state decide as to whether slavery is moral or immoral. Surely this will limit slavery and as we work for a more just society more and more slaveowners will decide to reduce the number of slaves they own. Just because Sen. Douglas has invoked racist rhetoric and accused Lincoln of supporting black equality which he believes the authors of the Declaration of Independence did not intend, does not mean that he is pro-slavery. Even supporters of slavery can be conflicted about slavery and whether blacks are equal to us or not and we should work to move to a society where slavery is safe, legal, and rare. Plus it is not true to call him pro-slavery. He is for the choice of slavery and people can decide on their own whether they want to become slaveowners or not. Shouldn't we let people make their own choices on this issue? Do we really want to legislate morality? Now as a Catholic I personally believe that slavery is wrong, but lawmakers need to represent the people.
Catholics should not be single issue voters and let slavery dominate the discussion. Human dignity and the acceptance of the government of human rights is just one issue of many. What about economic and other social justice issues? The election of Lincoln could even lead to civil war. Do we want a president whose "personal" moral code could lead us to war with all of the horrific deaths that could result? Plus if a war does start no doubt someone like Mr Lincoln would infringe on our civil liberties by suspending the right of Habeas Corpus.
This year the best choice to reduce slavery is to vote Sen. Douglas.
Signed Douglas Kmiec
Known as 
Bravo ! nice work.
Keep in mind, slavery will SURELY be reduced as a consequence of an improved standard of living and as we work harder for economic justice for slave owners and meet their needs.
Once their economic interests are seen to, I'm sure they won't need to keep slaves and will voluntarily - gradually - give up the practice. No one WANTS to keep slaves... slave holders are compelled by economic conditions.
Slavery, though brutal, is a matter of the individual conscience. In moving toward a more just society, southern plantations should not be punished with labor shortages or crops rotting in the field.
Recently read the full text of the Lincoln-Douglas debates (150 years ago this fall!) and have been thinking a lot about the previous Illinois Senator and Democratic Presidential nominee.
He'd be rolling over in his grave at the sight of his successor.
Douglas was certainly "pro-choice" about slavery, but he was no friend of blacks; Frederick Douglass said of him that no one had done more to reduce the status of blacks.
(But he spelled his name with only one "S".)
"We've already lost on slavery - permanently. Vote Douglas!"
- Nicholas Cafardi
Stephen Douglas, Frederick Douglass. Douglas, Douglass. Isn't it funny how the things that drove your professors up the wall can start to drive you up the wall by osmosis?
Right on, especially the point about the civil war.
Thank You
Thank You
Thank You !!!
I have begun making this same historical analogy in conversations with pro-Obama "Catholics." I have also suggested a German analogy: voting for the National Socialists because their plan to restore the ravaged German economy would certainly mean there would be less hardship to blame on German Jews, thereby mitigating their plan to systematically exterminate the Jews.
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union." - Lincoln in a letter to Horace Greeley
Jeff, you're on a roll. Excellent work.
Great post, it really exposes Kmiec and his fellow handmaidens (read Sebelius, Kennedy, Kerry, Biden, Pelosi, Kaine, etc.)for what they truly are!!!
Father Corapi sums it up best in his recent newsletter:
"In the past few months leading up to what may prove to be the most crucial presidential election in this country's history, it is outright frightening how many Catholics think they can vote for a pro-abortion candidate. As many of our good bishops have pointed out, under the current circumstances this is not possible. Abortion is the overridingly most important moral issue of our times, all others being important, but rendered irrelevant if the preeminent right—the right to life—is destroyed."
I thought Breckenridge was the hard-line pro-slavery guy, but this works too.
Norton For Emperor!
If you don't like slaves, don't have one!
Keep your rosaries off my slaveries!
Slavery, it's safe and legal.
Seriously, thanks so much for writing this post, Jeff.
If you don't like slaves, don't have one!
Keep your rosaries off my slaveries!
Slavery, it's safe and legal.
Excellent. I'll add:
How many slaves have YOU bought, freed, and given a job? If you haven't, then all your anti-slavery talk is empty rhetoric.
:::stands on chair and applauds:::
Well said! :-D
This is brilliant, and I see no problem with your logic at all.
In fact, you've inspired me to action. I'm going to gather a bunch of school children and have them sing for the hope and change that only Douglas can bring.
Together, we can make a difference! YES WE CAN!
Yeah, but j2d2...which one happened today...and yesterday...and will happen tommorrow? Which one is sanctioned by a major political party? Do you get how many 48 million is? We're not talking about 48 million that could be dead...we are talking about 48 million who are dead. It is the equivelant of killing almost every man, woman and child in California (35 Million), Oregon (3.5 million), Washington (6.8 million), Nevada (2.1 Million), & Idaho (1.3 million). Of course, with levels being constant we can wipe out what's left of them and knock out Montana (909,000) too. 8 years of an Obama presidency might well just knock off Arizona (5.4 million) and New Mexico (1.8 million). That much j2d2 is guaranteed...unlike your nuclear war argument. So just how many children have to die before you quit eqivocating?
"Fight the perceived need for abortion..."
Man, you'd be hilarious if you weren't joking about 48 MILLION DEAD BABIES, j2d2.
The perceived need for abortion? I'll tell you what that is: "How can I get my freak on if I've got a stupid kid hanging around?!" That's the so-called need for abortion. The ability to continue a life of promiscuity and selfishness.
Don't let your hatred of Republicans (I don't like them either) lead you to join the Demoncrats. That's like joining the Nazis because you disagree with the Communists.
When you cast your vote, you're voting as to whether you support the slaughter of millions of babies. That's it... to heck with all the other issues.
@Scott W.:
Don't forget "Keep yer laws offa mah plantation!"
I guess no one got my point that Lincoln was only anti-slavery to the extent that it served his purpose.
The Republican Party is not a pro-life party. If it were a pro-life party it would have abolished abortion when it controlled both houses of Congress and the white house.
The Republican Party is not a pro-life party.
I don't think anyone is under the impression that the Republicans are unified on abortion. Most except the most partisan pro-lifers recognize that the Republicans are at best unreliable allies. But it is one thing to be an unreliable ally, and quite another to be so formally committed to abortion that it is a party's central Sacrament of evil. Sure, every now and then they wheel out the handful of pro-life Dems on dollies like Hannibal Lecter for the press, but no one takes it seriously.
"Sure, every now and then they wheel out the handful of pro-life Dems on dollies
like Hannibal Lecter for the press" -- Well done Scott, that is hilarious.
Terry - we did get your point. I'm not sure what could have happened differently thus far to have outlawed abortion. One can't simply wave a wand and viola, Roe v. Wade is repealed.
States have tried restrictions that were almost always struck down by the court as unconstitutional in light of Roe v. Wade - even with a federal law passed and signed, legal abortion cannot be repealed until the court chooses to overturn its previous lousy decision. You need the judges for that. As far as that goes, three of the current nine were Carter or Clinton appointees, and of the other six, we've sadly struck out twice.
The only other option - a constitutional amendment - is even harder. Even with control of both houses, the Republicans never had the two-thirds majority necessary to present such an amendment to the states, to say nothing of how hard it would be to garner the 38 ratifications required to make it the law of the land.
And in any case, there's no good in just giving up because we haven't won yet.
First, many republicans were absolutely anti-slavery and Lincoln at worst evolved into one of them. Just read his second inaugural address. If that doesn't give you a clue of his position then nothing will. Finally I would argue the same is reasonably true about the Republicans today, many are pro-life but many do not have the courage to stand up to a nation which is at least committed to some abortions no matter what. We need to change the culture and that takes courage and especially real leadership concerning Catholic politicians from our Bishops. The democratic party would never have become pro abortion had Catholics been willing to abandon it in the 70's.
First, many republicans were absolutely anti-slavery and Lincoln at worst evolved into one of them. Just read his second inaugural address. If that doesn't give you a clue of his position then nothing will. Finally I would argue the same is reasonably true about the Republicans today, many are pro-life but many do not have the courage to stand up to a nation which is at least committed to some abortions no matter what. We need to change the culture and that takes courage and especially real leadership concerning Catholic politicians from our Bishops. The democratic party would never have become pro abortion had Catholics been willing to abandon it in the 70's.
Jeff, I hope Mark Shea reads your blog.
"The democratic party would never have become pro abortion had Catholics been willing to abandon it in the 70's."
As I remember it, the Demonrats became poraborts BEFORE the catholics left it in the 70's. And there are still A LOT of Catholics that are Demonrats. Narrowbacks!!!
Terry left out the concluding sentence in Lincoln's letter to Greeley:
"I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free."
Lincoln's problem was that the Democrats were adamantly pro-slavery as they are today pro-abortion. When political realities allowed him to destroy slavery he destroyed it. Blaming Republicans for not banning abortion when Democrats in Congress, even when the Republicans controlled both Houses, prevented any effective attack on abortion by filibusters in the Senate, is ludicrous.
In a memorable Simpsons Apu takes his citizenship exam:
Proctor: All right, here's your last question. What was the cause of
the Civil War?
Apu: Actually, there were numerous causes. Aside from the obvious
schism between the abolitionists and the anti-abolitionists,
there were economic factors, both domestic and inter--
Proctor: Wait, wait... just say slavery.
Apu: Slavery it is, sir.
-- "Much Apu About Nothing"
By the way how was slavery eliminated in every other nation without the use of a bloody civil war. It was pure pretense to permit Lincoln to increase the power of the federal governmet (more especially the executive branch) to benefit powerful Northern economic interests.
On Obama/Biden & Prof Kmiec: as the mother of a Pepperdine Law School grad [where Kmiec is a prof] AND the mother of a child born at 24 weeks gestation AND whose life was actually threatened from the failure to do a c-section instead of "inducing labor" [abortion?] AND whose child survived thank you very much b/c I am a Registered Nurse who was screaming "you'd better take care of my son!!" who is now 24 years old----you are absolutely right about rape/incest/the life of the mother being loopholes. The difference with slavery and the holocaust was that both of those were mandated by their governments. Enter the "Obama/Biden "National Health Care Plan" and abortion may in fact become mandated for rape, incest & the life of the mother. God help us.
As a Southerner with some sympathy for the arguments of a War of Nothern Aggression, that secession was not unconstitutional, Lincoln wasn't a saint, etc., I recognize that is not really the point of Jeff's entry but that pro-abortionists use similar craptastic logic that pro-slavery elements used. In fact, if you search some of the pro-slavery literature at the time, you will find many of the same lame arguments. When I gave the example of "How many slaves have YOU [abolitionists] bought and freed?" was indeed an argument floated back then that has returned as, "How many children have YOU adopted?"
I call BS. First, the reason England was able to abolish slavery without a civil war was that the central government was MUCH more powerful than the central government of the USA has ever been.
Second, who fired the first shot? What a masterpiece of political engineering it was for Lincoln to deviously manipulate all those hard-core pacifists like Yancey and Ruffin and Rhett into a war they didn't want.
Read Lincoln's First Inaugural again. He was adamant that secession was not only unconstitutional but did not exist, and he was also adamant that he would do nothing more than exercise federal rights on federal property. "We will not assail you."
I'm with Chuck and Bearded Professor Guy.
This would be a witty work of clever genius if the analogy really worked. For starters, Obama is not pro-abortion. Secondly, pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion---just as many "pro-lifers" are so in name only (i.e. allowing for stem cell research, allowing for abortion in the case of rape and incest). We all need to stop dealing in false dichotomies.
There are many other ways that this analogy breaks down. To start seeing and understanding them, read some history books---almost any will do. - TL
Tim Lacy,
Oh yeah Obama is not pro-abortion. That is why he promised the first thing he would do is sign FOCA which removes all restrictions such as parental notification passed into law by individual states. He is not pro-abortion. He just voted to allow infanticide to protect any challenge to abortion. Hey abortion doctors aren't pro-abortion either. Murderers aren't pro-murder either since they really don't want to murder, just to have it as an option like in the case of an armed robbery that goes bad.
Nobody is pro-abortion by this logic. When you allow something as an acceptable moral choice you are in favor of it. The Democratic platform this year is the most supportive platform of abortion ever.
Wake up and smell the saline.
Dear Jeff,
FOCA is nothing more than a legal restatement of Roe---with protections for those who actually choose life. Read FOCA carefully. Just because some pro-choicers like it doesn't mean that it's a pro-abortion bill.
Read Eric Zorn's expansive Chicago Tribune blog entry on how Obama is NOT pro-infanticide. That's a joke perpetuated by the pseudo-intellectual pro-lifer Jill Stanek.
Finally, Douglas was a state's rights guy. In this election, that's McCain with his promotion of strict-constructivist-type judges. Obama is the federalist here.
Again, simply repeating that Obama is a baby-hating, pro-abortion infanticide supporter---over and over and over---isn't going to make it true. Try being an actual human being instead a "jester" guy.
- TL