|
|
Post by aztec70 on Dec 27, 2010 13:13:49 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Dec 27, 2010 17:27:36 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Dec 31, 2010 16:19:58 GMT -8
Weak. I'm rather surprised you'd offer this. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Dec 31, 2010 16:30:22 GMT -8
Weak. I'm rather surprised you'd offer this. =Bob Weak? It was not a rebuttal of Mr. Dionne's article. It was merely an ironic observation. You obviously didn't bother to pursue the relevant links. But just for you... online.wsj.com/article/SB124044199838345461.html |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Dec 31, 2010 16:34:08 GMT -8
Weak. I'm rather surprised you'd offer this. =Bob Weak? It was not a rebuttal of Mr. Dionne's article. It was merely an ironic observation. You obviously didn't bother to pursue the relevant links. But just for you... online.wsj.com/article/SB124044199838345461.htmlThen offer the "relevant links" up-front instead of assuming I'm going to waste my time looking for them. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Dec 31, 2010 16:40:55 GMT -8
Then offer the "relevant links" up-front instead of assuming I'm going to waste my time looking for them. =Bob I don't "ASSume" anything about an arrogant ideologue like you. You can follow the links, or go into rectal defilade as you choose. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Dec 31, 2010 17:57:21 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Dec 31, 2010 18:16:17 GMT -8
Then offer the "relevant links" up-front instead of assuming I'm going to waste my time looking for them. =Bob I don't "ASSume" anything about an arrogant ideologue like you. You can follow the links, or go into rectal defilade as you choose. Yawn. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by montyismyhomie on Jan 3, 2011 0:17:02 GMT -8
The civil war had nothing to do with slavery... It was about state's rights  |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jan 3, 2011 9:30:03 GMT -8
The civil war had nothing to do with slavery... It was about state's rights That's true. The right to own slaves in that state. |
|
|
|
Post by sandiegopete on Jan 3, 2011 13:44:03 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Jan 3, 2011 14:37:20 GMT -8
You meant "secession", right? Anyhow, now that we have established that the only reason for the secession movement in the 19th Century was slavery, and now since that issue was put to bed over 140 years ago, maybe we can deal with the proposed "Federalism Amendment" which would permit 2/3 of the State Legislatures to nullify Federal law. tinyurl.com/24x92bj |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jan 3, 2011 15:11:18 GMT -8
You meant "secession", right? Anyhow, now that we have established that the only reason for the secession movement in the 19th Century was slavery, and now since that issue was put to bed over 140 years ago, maybe we can deal with the proposed "Federalism Amendment" which would permit 2/3 of the State Legislatures to nullify Federal law. tinyurl.com/24x92bjThis is where it creates a problem: Besides, the proposal has a built-in safety valve: Congress can re-enact anything the states manage to repeal.And then we go round and round and nothing ever gets accomplished. Besides, the only elected officials with less intelligence than members of Congress are usually found in state legislatures. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Jan 3, 2011 16:52:32 GMT -8
You meant "secession", right? Anyhow, now that we have established that the only reason for the secession movement in the 19th Century was slavery, and now since that issue was put to bed over 140 years ago, maybe we can deal with the proposed "Federalism Amendment" which would permit 2/3 of the State Legislatures to nullify Federal law. tinyurl.com/24x92bjThis is where it creates a problem: Besides, the proposal has a built-in safety valve: Congress can re-enact anything the states manage to repeal.And then we go round and round and nothing ever gets accomplished. Besides, the only elected officials with less intelligence than members of Congress are usually found in state legislatures. =Bob And the states could continue to nullify until the members of Congress were either defeated in re-election, or they got smart enough to see the light. Members of California's legislature are, of course, much less intelligent than members of Congress. That's a given. But if 2/3 of ALL legislatures agree on something, it just might be the prong needed to send a message to Congress. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jan 14, 2011 16:23:07 GMT -8
Is there any serious scholars who still claim the Civil war wasn't due to Slavery? Any reading of history makes it very clear.
Linclon's Second Inaugural Address really lays it out clearly
One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by temeculaaztec on Jan 20, 2011 18:58:25 GMT -8
The extension of slavery into the territories in the West was one of many causes (along with states rights; societal, economic and cultural differences between North and South; the publication Harriet Beecher's Stowe's Uncle Toms Cabin; popular sovereignty, etc.) of the Civil War. The South had become a minority region in Congress and saw that political power was slipping away to Freesoilers and Northern interests(see Bleeding Kansas, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, admission of CA as a free state, and finally the election of Lincoln). Remember, Lincoln promised to allow slavery to remain where it already existed after his 1860 election but South Carolina declared secession anyways and was soon followed by six other states. Four border slave states stayed loyal to the Union throughout the War and the slaves there were not emancipated until the passage of the 13th amendment. The Emancipation Proclamation was written specifically to apply only to states and territories still in rebellion and under Confederate control (more evidence that the preservation of the Union was paramount) which essentially freed no slaves until union soldiers liberated them. It did not apply to those border states who stayed loyal to the union. Lincoln's main objective was to PRESERVE the UNION (see his letter to Horace Greeley); not to free the slaves but to prevent its extension to the western territories. The emancipation of slaves was not the only cause of the war but it became a necessary goal/result of the war. It elevated the war to a moral cause (after the Battle of Antietam, 1862) to issue the Emanc. Procl. (Jan. 1863) and helped convince European powers (who had emancipated their slaves many years earlier) to not join the conflict on the side of the Confederacy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jan 21, 2011 18:35:38 GMT -8
This is where it creates a problem: Besides, the proposal has a built-in safety valve: Congress can re-enact anything the states manage to repeal.And then we go round and round and nothing ever gets accomplished. Besides, the only elected officials with less intelligence than members of Congress are usually found in state legislatures. =Bob And the states could continue to nullify until the members of Congress were either defeated in re-election, or they got smart enough to see the light. Members of California's legislature are, of course, much less intelligent than members of Congress. That's a given. But if 2/3 of ALL legislatures agree on something, it just might be the prong needed to send a message to Congress. Sorry Counselor, but this is just so much babbling. Why am I not surprised? =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Jan 22, 2011 14:28:19 GMT -8
And the states could continue to nullify until the members of Congress were either defeated in re-election, or they got smart enough to see the light. Members of California's legislature are, of course, much less intelligent than members of Congress. That's a given. But if 2/3 of ALL legislatures agree on something, it just might be the prong needed to send a message to Congress. Sorry Counselor, but this is just so much babbling. Why am I not surprised? =Bob "Babbling"? Here's some "babbling" from Hamilton in Federalist #28: "Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and those will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate." Of course such a concept would be beyond any possible comprehension by someone with a "Mastur's" indoctrination like you.... Why am I not surprised? <heh> |
|
