| Author |
Message |
    
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 936
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 11:27 pm: | 
|
CJC-- Carters executive order on FISA-- allows for sealing the warrant app and continuation of wiretapping for up to one year. Even if the E/O was repealed-- Bush could have re-written it. |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3176
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 12:09 am: |
|
"The Emancipation Proclamation
President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, as the nation approached its third year of bloody civil war. The proclamation declared "that all persons held as slaves" within the rebellious states "are, and henceforward shall be free."
Despite this expansive wording, the Emancipation Proclamation was limited in many ways. It applied only to states that had seceded from the Union, leaving slavery untouched in the loyal border states. It also expressly exempted parts of the Confederacy that had already come under Northern control. Most important, the freedom it promised depended upon Union military victory.
Although the Emancipation Proclamation did not immediately free a single slave, it fundamentally transformed the character of the war. After January 1, 1863, every advance of federal troops expanded the domain of freedom. Moreover, the Proclamation announced the acceptance of black men into the Union Army and Navy, enabling the liberated to become liberators. By the end of the war, almost 200,000 black soldiers and sailors had fought for the Union and freedom.
From the first days of the Civil War, slaves had acted to secure their own liberty. The Emancipation Proclamation confirmed their insistence that the war for the Union must become a war for freedom. It added moral force to the Union cause and strengthened the Union both militarily and politically. As a milestone along the road to slavery's final destruction, the Emancipation Proclamation has assumed a place among the great documents of human freedom."
OK, CJC?
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5154
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 9:31 am: |
|
 |
Grrrrrrrrrrr
Citizen
Username: Oldsctls67
Post Number: 257
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 9:40 am: |
|
When is everyone jsut going to learn to ignore Tulip? She has absolutely NOTHING to do with M/SO, and is purely one of those "outside agitators" Norman Fell railed against in The Graduate. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5155
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 10:36 am: |
|
Why ignore tulip when she represents the critical thinking of the Democratic Party today? |
Threeringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 28
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 12:40 pm: |
|
Contrary to government school propaganda, the war between the states was not fought to free the slaves. It was fought for political and economic reasons. (What a surprise, eh?) Lincoln was, in effect, a dictator who makes George W. Bush look prudent and statesmanlike. There are many myths about "Honest" Abe. Here are just 6:
Myth #1: Lincoln invaded the South to free the slaves. Ending slavery and racial injustice is not why the North invaded. As Lincoln wrote to Horace Greeley on Aug. 22, 1862: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it"
Myth #2: Lincoln's war saved the Union. The war may have saved the Union geographically, but it destroyed it philosophically by destroying its voluntary nature. In the Articles of Confederation, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution, the states described themselves as "free and independent." They delegated certain powers to the federal government they had created as their agent but retained sovereignty for themselves.
Myth #3: Lincoln championed equality and natural rights. His words and, more important, his actions, repudiate this myth. "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races," he announced in his Aug. 21, 1858, debate with Stephen Douglas. "I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position." And, "Free them [slaves] and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this. We cannot, then, make them equals."
Lincoln was also a lifelong advocate of "colonization" or shipping all black people to Africa, Central America, Haiti--anywhere but here. "I cannot make it better known than it already is," he stated in a Dec. 1, 1862, Message to Congress, "that I strongly favor colonization." To Lincoln, blacks could be "equal," but not in the United States.
Myth #4: Lincoln was a defender of the Constitution. Quite the contrary: Generations of historians have labeled Lincoln a "dictator." "Dictatorship played a decisive role in the North's successful effort to maintain the Union by force of arms," wrote Clinton Rossiter in "Constitutional Dictatorship." And, "Lincoln's amazing disregard for the Constitution was considered by nobody as legal."
Myth #5: Lincoln was a "great humanitarian" who had "malice toward none." This is inconsistent with the fact that Lincoln micromanaged the waging of war on civilians, including the burning of entire towns populated only by civilians; massive looting and plundering; rape; and the execution of civilians (See Mark Grimsley, "The Hard Hand of War"). Pro-Lincoln historian Lee Kennett wrote in "Marching Through Georgia" that, had the Confederates somehow won, they would have been justified in "stringing up President Lincoln and the entire Union high command" as war criminals
Myth #6: War was necessary to end slavery. During the 19th century, dozens of countries, including the British and Spanish empires, ended slavery peacefully through compensated emancipation. Among such countries were Argentina, Colombia, Chile, all of Central America, Mexico, Bolivia, Uruguay, the French and Danish colonies, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela. (Lincoln did propose compensated emancipation for the border states, but coupled his proposal with deportation of any freed slaves. He failed to see it through, however). Only in America was war associated with emancipation.
Cheers
|
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3177
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 5:29 pm: |
|
Barbara:
Fascinating. It so happens slavery was prevalent in New Jersey. There are plenty of examples of the Underground Railroad and houses out here in the woods where slaves were sequestered in their path to Canada. South Jersey was pro-slavery. Right, cjc?
By the way, cjc, thanks for linking me with Democrats. As a lifelong Democrat I am sincerely flattered to think my beliefs are "typical." However, for a party with a still growing tent, I am not sure we allow ourselves to have a "typical" thought pattern, unlike our loyal opposition, the Repubs.
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5160
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 8:48 pm: |
|
tulip -- your pup tent is just starting to grow, if at all. If Lieberman isn't tossed out for his pro-war views, and Casey running for the PA Senate seat is allowed to address pro-life issues at the DNC convention, I'll believe your tent is growing. |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5027
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 9:03 pm: |
|
As with so many other issues, New Jersey was a study in contrasts on the issue of slavery. There was a thriving abolitionist movement, and stops on the Underground Railroad, yet at the same time NJ was probably the last Northern state to abolish slavery.
That having been said, that history still stands in contrast to that of the states of the confederacy. Despite the "League of the South" propaganda represented by the discussion of Lincoln, posted by Threeringale above, the simple truth is that slavery was the real point of confrontation in the U.S. when the Civil War broke out.
Lincoln's primary goal may have been the preservation of the Union, but neither he nor anyone else could delude themselves about which issue had caused the separation. |
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 2587
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 10:28 pm: |
|
Reading this thread I was becoming more and more disgusted until I reached NoHero's post. Thank you NoHero for your constant intelligence and wisdom. |
Threeringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 29
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Friday, February 10, 2006 - 6:28 pm: |
|
So facts that are inconvenient are thereby transformed into propaganda? And not just any propaganda, but "League of the South" propaganda.
Sounds pretty scary.
Cheers
|
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3181
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 10, 2006 - 6:42 pm: |
|
Threering: You have to understand. Hearing about the burning of nine churches in Alabama, witnessing the marches of neo-Nazis in Youngstown, Ohio last fall, sanctioned by the police until they exploded, the neglect of the many in New Orleans, all these things together are not making those of us formerly aware of, and involved in, what was called the "Civil Rights Movement" all that comfortable.
Pardon me if we become nostalgic. No offense meant, as far as I am concerned. You may be right about Lincoln. Sounds like he may have played several sides of the political issue, to meet his audience.
He seemed fairly explicit about rights, in my estimation, but maybe I am thinking wishfully.
It would be interesting to see what those other than you and southerner think. You sound like you are angry or resentful about the outcome of the Civil War.
That would indeed be scary.
Are you? |
Threeringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 30
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, February 11, 2006 - 11:13 am: |
|
Tulip,
The burning of the churches in Alabama are criminal acts and should be investigated and prosecuted as such. A handful of gap-toothed, jack-booted skinheads parading around does not, to me at least, signal that the dark night of Fascism has descended on America. Would it not be better to ignore them as you might ignore a child throwing a tantrum? The fiasco in the aftermath of Katrina seems more like the result of bi-partisan incompetence rather than a coldly-calculated program based on race.
The causes of the War between the States (I don't call it the Civil War) were primarily economic and political, but slavery was an issue.
There were extremists on both sides who wanted to fight about it. Fire-eaters in the South, and
abolitionist nut-cases in the North. (William Lloyd Garrison burning the Constitution on July 4th comes to mind). By the way, I think you can make a rough and ready comparison between the 19th century Abolitionists and the 21st century Neo-Conservatives. If Garrison were alive at this hour he would probably be fulminating from an endowed chair at the AEI about the need to bring democracy, freedom and market capitalism to the benighted inhabitants of the Middle East.
There is a universalistic and utopian streak in both of them, and I wouldn't trust either one.
I believe that the states of the Confederacy had the right to secede peacefully. The late George Kennan, in one of his later books endorsed the concept of secession as a way to make government on a more human scale and to tame the militaristic leviathan we have become since WWII. I'm not holding my breath waiting for it to happen, but I don't think it intellectually beyond the pale.
Am I angry or resentful about the outcome of the war. Not really. But I am sad. Sad that 600,000 people died and the South was put to fire and sword. There must have been a better way.
Cheers
|
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5032
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Saturday, February 11, 2006 - 2:52 pm: |
|
The text of the "Lincoln Myths" post was taken from an essay by Thomas DiLorenzo (http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo44.html), of the League of the South Institute (http://www.lsinstitute.org/), the self-described "educational arm of the Southern independence movement".
And the Civil War started with the secession of South Carolina, even before Lincoln was inaugurated. The reason for secession was set out in the "South Carolina Declaration of Succession" - and it can be seen that secession was to protect the institution of slavery. |
Threeringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 31
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, February 11, 2006 - 4:28 pm: |
|
Well, Nohero has exposed me for the shameless plaigiarist that I am. OK, I admit that I don't have a PhD from Boston University. But maybe I was just practicing "voice-merging", nothing wrong with that, right?
And the Civil War started with the secession of South Carolina, even before Lincoln was inaugurated. The reason for secession was set out in the "South Carolina Declaration of Succession" - and it can be seen that secession was to protect the institution of slavery.
I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with this. The Constitution permitted slavery, so secession to protect the institution seems a little odd. The date of the South Carolina declaration was Dec. 24, 1860. Lincoln's first inaugural was March 4, 1861. According to McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, p.261: "Lincoln devoted great care to every phrase of the address". (I'm trying to be careful with sources here). In his address, he said he had no intention of interfering with the institution of slavery. He also said that he would use his power to collect the duties and imposts, i.e. money would continue to flow from South to North. If the war started in Dec. 1860,
this sounds like a pretty uncertain trumpet to rally the troops.
The problem with this topic is that for many people, the right of secession is automatically equated with an endorsement of slavery. This is facile and wrong. I would strongly disagree with anyone who said that Robert E. Lee fought to protect the institution of slavery.
Cheers
|
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5033
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Saturday, February 11, 2006 - 4:37 pm: |
|
I only mentioned the source, because you seemed to question my earlier reference to the "League of the South". As for this statement -
Quote:I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with this. The Constitution permitted slavery, so secession to protect the institution seems a little odd.
I would just refer you to the text of the South Carolina declaration (it's at the link provided above), and other available source documents. For example, this is why South Carolina declared that it would leave the Union -
Quote:A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.
On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.
The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.
The pro-slavery states wanted to expand slavery to the territories, and add new pro-slavery states. They recognized that the institution of slavery was endangered, if they could not do that. So, even though Lincoln had stated that he would not interfere with the institution of slavery, in those states where it then existed, the pro-slavery states feared that he would limit slavery and not allow it to spread. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 656
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 11, 2006 - 4:42 pm: |
|
tulip,
I had no dog in that fight because my ancestors were not even here yet. I am very happy with the outcome of the civil war though. Rather than being two countries each having to support themselves, with one country, the rural folks can simply suck off you big city slickers and your high taxes. Thanks for the subsidies and the new roads. Make sure you get your forms in on time this year. We need a few more taxpayer paid for banjo parks and mule rides. With good ole boys like Bush and Frist running the show it isn't just crazy man Stevens who can get all the dough. |
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 2590
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, February 11, 2006 - 6:08 pm: |
|
Thank you Threeringale and NoHero for showing us what an intelligent disagreement looks like. Thank you tulip and southerner for showing the contrast. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 659
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 11, 2006 - 6:15 pm: |
|
Your welcome. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4342
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, February 11, 2006 - 9:13 pm: |
|
If slavery wasn't the reason the south seceded, then you have to come up with a plausible alternative. There were other disagreements, certainly; but no one can seriously claim that the south allowed itself to suffer such tremendous and total devastation merely to protect tarrifs, or because they opposed public improvements.
On the other hand, their entire economy was dependent on (and distorted by) the free labor slavery provided, and their political strength totally dependent on the 3/5 clause. This which effectively gave a single plantation owner with 100 slaves the same voting power as 61 northerners. |
Threeringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 33
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Monday, February 13, 2006 - 10:12 am: |
|
I wanted to say something yesterday, but my energies were diverted by snow shoveling and home-brewed beer sampling. I thank anon for his word about intelligent disagreement. I have friends and relatives who are Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals. Oddly enough, none of them agree with me about anything. But at the end of the day, they are still my friends and relatives. There is more to life than politics. I am still unable to agree with Nohero. South Carolina seceded to protect slavery? OK. But was this the casus belli? Not necessarily. I think states had a right to secede
and Lincoln was hell-bent on not allowing them to do so. I don't know how far slavery could have expanded into the territories. Utah was crawling with Mormons. New Mexico territory was probably not an enviroment that would be receptive to large scale slave-based economic activity and it was far from the heart of Dixie.
That leaves Indian territory. Now, the Indians were not exactly averse to slavery, but what would the planters have hoped to accomplish there?I read somewhere that they were looking to expand southward, to Cuba and Central America eventually. A harebrained scheme, in my opinion. But if the South had peacefully seceded and started to do this why should it be any skin off the nose of a Yankee? The Constitution was a com promise and I think the Founding Fathers did a pretty good job. It worked for a few decades, but by the time of the Missouri Compromise, the writing was on the wall Jefferson was right about the fire bell in the night. North and South were dividing into 2 separate nations: urban/industrial vs. rural/agrarian. Slavery and abolitionism both acted as solvents on the bonds of union. I would have allowed the South to go in peace. Maybe I just don't like Lincoln? He always strikes me as smarmy and lawyerlike. Or do I repeat myself?
This post is far too long so I'll stop here. As I said, I can live with disagreement. Nohero can have the last word if he wants it.
Cheers
PS If you really have time to kill you can go to http://www.mises.org/media.aspx?action=showname&ID=425
and listen to Thomas Dilorenzo live!
|
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3198
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 13, 2006 - 4:47 pm: |
|
Know what? I started this thread, so I don't particularly appreciate you deciding who can post next, and I don't give a rat's patootie what anon thinks of my posts. If he doesn't like them....you know the rest. Maybe anon doesn't much like Lincoln either.
Threering; I can't possibly see this the way you do. You don't Lincoln do you?
Please stop saying things like this on the Coretta Scott King thread. Start your own thread and start debating with yourself about whether slavery was appropriate or not.
This whole thread has been perverted.
Thanks. |
MBJ
Citizen
Username: Mbj
Post Number: 125
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Monday, February 13, 2006 - 4:59 pm: |
|
Actually this thread has turned quite interesting thanks to Theering and Anon. If you dont' like it, lump it. |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3199
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 13, 2006 - 4:59 pm: |
|
Obviously there are lots of retired, tired, unemployed or bored people with lots of time to do nothing but kibbitz on this poor message board.
Get up, get out, get a life. Do something for someone else. |
MBJ
Citizen
Username: Mbj
Post Number: 126
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Monday, February 13, 2006 - 5:27 pm: |
|
Sounds like you should take your own advice. |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3200
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 13, 2006 - 5:29 pm: |
|
I work full time. What do you do? |
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 14585
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 13, 2006 - 6:35 pm: |
|
Hey Tulip, Anon has challenged me to a fight. Do you want me to give him an extra slap on your behalf? |
MBJ
Citizen
Username: Mbj
Post Number: 127
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Monday, February 13, 2006 - 6:43 pm: |
|
3,200 posts in a little less than 2 years.
You must be extremely busy at "work". |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3203
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 13, 2006 - 6:45 pm: |
|
Sbenois: When I saw you had posted, I was gearing up to defend myself. Happily, I found you to be quite chivalrous. Can I trust you? If so, have at it!!! Give him a good sharp slap on my behalf, if you please. |
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 14587
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 13, 2006 - 7:01 pm: |
|
I can't. What would Correta think?
Advocating violence on this thread: Shame on you Tulip.
Besides, I hear that he can bench press 500 pounds, 250 more than Straw. |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3204
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 13, 2006 - 7:17 pm: |
|
I can just picture anon and Straw, huge guys with bulging muscles, tattoos all over 'em.
Good luck!!
And you're right, I'm ashamed of advocating violence on my own Coretta Memorial thread. Forgive me, Coretta, and all proponents of non-violent protest!!
|
Threeringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 34
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 7:07 am: |
|
Tulip,
I did not realize there was a proprietary aspect to these threads. I kind of like the fact that they can branch off in unexpected directions. Please be assured that if I start a thread of my own, you are invited to express your agreement or disagreement at any time you wish. I don't think I ever said slavery was necessary, but it was legal. I would not own a slave or want to be a slave. But I also would not be willing to fight a war over slavery. I guess I don't like Lincoln. So what? The man's stated opinions on race make John Rocker look like John Lennon. Anyone who is mildly curious could verify that in short order. So maybe I'm not so far off topic after all?
Cheers |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page