And has been fighting the North, in one way or another, ever since.

Also, the North's moral purpose, the abolition of slavery, was only sort-of achieved. The institution of slavery was no longer legally recognized, but blacks were kept in a form of servitude for over 100 years after. Who can say if this might have been avoided if moral purpose had been enforced by something other than the bayonet?

The Civil War, a crusade and culture war in the most literal sense, scarred this entire nation. It may be an appropriate analogy for our future relationship with Iraq. We shall have to see.

Again, I tell you, I know that armies spill blood, though I doubt that soldiers enlist with the thought that they are about to die. I object to the "shucks, that's not a whole lot of bodies" attitude that this Administration projects, and that its supporters repeat, regarding the military deaths in Iraq. To acknowledge loss is not to prepare to withdraw. It might give the Administration a less shiny image, though.

And if we are to talk about choice, let's not forget about civilians, who didn't sign up for anything. I can go along with the idea that it's better to be killed by an American bomb than by a Baathist torturer: it's probably faster, and more likely that your loved ones can find your body afterward. Better than horrid is still not good. "Fewer than expected" is not "none". I object to the implication that it is.

Thank you for the quotes. They'll come in handy for our next discussion of civil liberties, which is what they were truly addressing. I find Patrick Henry's to be most amusing in the context of this exchange. The slavery he abhorred was, of course, not that of one-third of his fellow Virginians, but his own.

Regards--
Mary Anne