Discussion:
Let Us Die Like Brave Men: Behind The Dying Words of Confederate Warriors
(too old to reply)
Faye
2005-06-17 15:44:02 UTC
Permalink
complete story in City Paper
http://66.45.13.138/index.cfm?section_id=12&screen=news&news_id=42229

Author, historian and former state representative Daniel W. Barefoot has
written nine previous books, several of them covering former Civil War
events and/or personalities. But he's well aware that his latest Let Us Die
Like Brave Men: Behind The Dying Words of Confederate Warriors (John F.
Blair) may stir some severe emotions and responses, particularly with its
cover illustration that includes a soldier holding the Confederate flag. Yet
Barefoot, who signs copies of his book today at the Hermitage Museum Shop,
hopes that readers understand exactly what's he trying to do with this book
rather than make assumptions depending on their own biases regarding the
Civil War.

"My intention with this book was to look at some qualities that I felt were
universal and timeless and expressed by the soldiers who fought for the
Confederacy," Barefoot said. "I'm well aware of the irrational attitudes
that many people have regarding the conflict, no matter what side you're
coming from. But I felt that such qualities as honor, valor in battle [and]
sacrifice, were things that make this nation great and special. I wasn't
trying to do anything beyond recognizing this and the fact that they gave
their lives in the war. Many of these soldiers were very young men, and many
were poor. A lot of them didn't own slaves and they saw themselves defending
their homeland and their relatives. It's not necessary to agree with their
cause to acknowledge their bravery."
--

Faye
Walt
2005-06-19 16:33:41 UTC
Permalink
Boo hoo hoo for Johnny Reb.


Lawrence Keitt, speaking in the South Carolina secession convention,
said, "Our
people have come to this on the question of slavery. I am willing, in
that
address to rest it upon that question. I think it is the great central
point
from which we are now proceeding, and I am not willing to divert the
public
attention from it."
Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 4: "No bill of attainder, ex post
facto law,
or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall
be
passed."

Article IV, Section 3, Paragraph 3: "The Confederate States may acquire
new
territory . . . In all such territory, the institution of negro
slavery, as it
now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected
by
Congress and the territorial government."
From the Georgia Constitution of 1861:"The General Assembly shall have
no power to pass laws for the emancipation of slaves." (This is the
entire text of
Article 2, Sec. VII, Paragraph 3.)

From the Alabama Constitution of 1861: "No slave in this State shall
be
emancipated by any act done to take effect in this State, or any other
country." (This is the entire text of Article IV, Section 1 (on
slavery).)


Alexander Stephens, Vice-President of the Confederacy, referring to the

Confederate government: "Its foundations are laid, its cornerstone
rests, upon
the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that
slavery . .
. is his natural and normal condition." [Augusta, Georgia, Daily
Constitutionalist, March 30, 1861.]


On the formation of black regiments in the Confederate army, by
promising the
troops their freedom: Howell Cobb, former general in Lee's army, and
prominent
pre-war Georgia politician: "If slaves will make good soldiers, then
our whole
theory of slavery is wrong." [Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.]


A North Carolina newspaper editorial: "it is abolition doctrine . . .
the very
doctrine which the war was commenced to put down." [North Carolina
Standard,
Jan. 17, 1865; cited in Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.]


Robert M.T. Hunter, Senator from Virginia, "What did we go to war for,
if not
to protect our property?"


Alfred P. Aldrich, South Carolina legislator from Barnwell: "If the
Republican
party with its platform of principles, the main feature of which is the

abolition of slavery and, therefore, the destruction of the South,
carries the
country at the next Presidential election, shall we remain in the
Union, or
form a separate Confederacy? This is the great, grave issue. It is not
who
shall be President, it is not which party shall rule -- it is a
question of
political and social existence." [Steven Channing, Crisis of Fear, pp.
141-142.]


There is no way to divorce "southern" heritage from slavery and
unwarranted revolution.

Walt
Paul Stevens
2005-06-19 17:08:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Walt
Boo hoo hoo for Johnny Reb.
(snip)
Post by Walt
There is no way to divorce "southern" heritage from slavery and
unwarranted revolution.
"Unwarranted revolution"? Would that be something like having
a revolution because an election didn't go the way you wanted it
to?

WalterM140 wrote, on July 4, 2004 (in the thread "Are We -Already-
Conquered and Ruined?":

"I do know that the Bushies will do anything to remain in power.

The question is, are we going to resist this now, or wait until
after they've stolen the election, perhaps by colluding with the
Supreme Court?

Then we'll have to consider a -real- revolution."




There were several factors involved in the American Civil War,
even pressure from the northern iron industry to destroy the
southern iron industry (both a military objective and a business
competitor) because it produced a higher quality product. By
the end of the war, advances in steel production made the danger
of southern iron competition moot.

It wasn't just a war to end slavery.



Getting back to the topic of Faye's post, reading the final
words of dead soldiers can lead to a greater understanding of
the people involved in a war. The thoughts of those on the
opposing side can be especially enlightening, as they can
help highlight similarities and (hopefully) help avoid future
conflicts.
--
Paul Stevens

"You can lead an idiot to knowledge,
but you can't make him think."
Faye
2005-06-20 17:50:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Stevens
"Unwarranted revolution"? Would that be something like having
a revolution because an election didn't go the way you wanted it
to?
WalterM140 wrote, on July 4, 2004 (in the thread "Are We -Already-
"I do know that the Bushies will do anything to remain in power.
The question is, are we going to resist this now, or wait until
after they've stolen the election, perhaps by colluding with the
Supreme Court?
Then we'll have to consider a -real- revolution.">
There were several factors involved in the American Civil War,
even pressure from the northern iron industry to destroy the
southern iron industry (both a military objective and a business
competitor) because it produced a higher quality product. By
the end of the war, advances in steel production made the danger
of southern iron competition moot.
It wasn't just a war to end slavery.
The Civil War was about ending slavery just like the Iraq War is about
freeing the Iraqi people--a latent repub excuse to win support for an
economic war. Follow the money. The naivete of some people is just
unbelievable. A government that had been since its inception and that would
continue for decades following the Civil War to systematically conquer to
the brink of annihilation the indigenous peoples on its soil suddenly takes
time to fight a devastating war to free slaves. uh huh. I lost patience
with such blindered debate a long time ago. The battle to end slavery could
have and should have been fought in Congress.

The attitude concerning Southerners in general of the poster to whom you
responded came long ago to remind me of the scene in "Independence Day" when
the president asks, "What do you want us to do?" and the alien replies,
"DIE."
Post by Paul Stevens
Getting back to the topic of Faye's post,
Thank you...

reading the final
Post by Paul Stevens
words of dead soldiers can lead to a greater understanding of
the people involved in a war. The thoughts of those on the
opposing side can be especially enlightening, as they can
help highlight similarities and (hopefully) help avoid future
conflicts.
Exactly, Paul. As the author noted, there is a universality from which we
can learn. This is a lesson in gentility that my daddy, now 86, has taught
me in such beautiful manner through his attitudes and feelings towards the
Germans he fought in WWII. At the heart of the lesson are myriad
universals, there but for the grace of God..., do unto others....

All of the little ones in my family will receive an autographed copy for
Christmas. I am hopeful that Sam Davis' story, included in the book btw,
will touch them as it did me in my youth, that they will learn and embody
the lesson of death before dishonour that this young Tennessee private
taught through his actions. Outside religion, the Tennessean holds no
lesson dearer.

Faye
Paul Stevens
2005-06-21 00:14:20 UTC
Permalink
Faye wrote:
(snip)
Post by Faye
The attitude concerning Southerners in general of the poster to whom you
responded came long ago to remind me of the scene in "Independence Day" when
the president asks, "What do you want us to do?" and the alien replies,
"DIE."
Does seem to be a fitting comparison. :)
Post by Faye
Post by Paul Stevens
Getting back to the topic of Faye's post,
Thank you...
reading the final
Post by Paul Stevens
words of dead soldiers can lead to a greater understanding of
the people involved in a war. The thoughts of those on the
opposing side can be especially enlightening, as they can
help highlight similarities and (hopefully) help avoid future
conflicts.
Exactly, Paul. As the author noted, there is a universality from which we
can learn. This is a lesson in gentility that my daddy, now 86, has taught
me in such beautiful manner through his attitudes and feelings towards the
Germans he fought in WWII. At the heart of the lesson are myriad
universals, there but for the grace of God..., do unto others....
I've read a few books that included some letters, written during
WWII, from members of the Japanese military. Some strong cultural
differences were obvious, but there were still some similarities
to what you would expect a US soldier to write home. Sitting in
a foxhole seems to create a bit of a shared perspective, to both
sides of the line.
Post by Faye
All of the little ones in my family will receive an autographed copy for
Christmas. I am hopeful that Sam Davis' story, included in the book btw,
will touch them as it did me in my youth, that they will learn and embody
the lesson of death before dishonour that this young Tennessee private
taught through his actions. Outside religion, the Tennessean holds no
lesson dearer.
I might have to add it to the list of books to read when I have
the time (yet another addition I can blame on you ;) ).
--
Paul Stevens

"You can lead an idiot to knowledge,
but you can't make him think."
Walt
2005-06-21 09:45:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Faye
The Civil War was about ending slavery just like the Iraq War is about
freeing the Iraqi people--a latent repub excuse to win support for an
economic war.
-- Faye

Nonsense.

Slavery was the only reason for the war. That -was- the economic
reason.

"On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago, all thoughts
were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it--all
sought to avert it. While the inaugeral [sic] address was being
delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union
without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it
without war--seeking to dissole [sic] the Union, and divide effects, by
negotiation. Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make
war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war
rather than let it perish. And the war came.

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."

A. Lincoln, 3/4/65

Alexander Stephens, Vice-President of the Confederacy, referring to the
Confederate government: "Its foundations are laid, its cornerstone
rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white
man; that slavery . . . is his natural and normal condition." [Augusta,
Georgia, Daily Constitutionalist, March 30, 1861.]

On the formation of black regiments in the Confederate army, by
promising the troops their freedom: Howell Cobb, former general in
Lee's army, and prominent pre-war Georgia politician: "If slaves will
make good soldiers, then our whole theory of slavery is wrong." [Battle
Cry of Freedom, p. 835.]

A North Carolina newspaper editorial: "it is abolition doctrine . . .
the very doctrine which the war was commenced to put down." [North
Carolina Standard, Jan. 17, 1865; cited in Battle Cry of Freedom, p.
835.]

Robert M.T. Hunter, Senator from Virginia, "What did we go to war for,
if not to protect our property?"

Alfred P. Aldrich, South Carolina legislator from Barnwell: "If the
Republican party with its platform of principles, the main feature of
which is the abolition of slavery and, therefore, the destruction of
the South, carries the country at the next Presidential election, shall
we remain in the Union, or form a separate Confederacy? This is the
great, grave issue. It is not who shall be President, it is not which
party shall rule -- it is a question of political and social
existence." [Steven Channing, Crisis of Fear, pp. 141-142.]

Senator Hunter of VA. During the Negro Soldier Bill debate on March 7,
1865, the SOUTHERN HISTORICAL SOCIETY PAPERS notes him as stating his
opinion of the Bill as follows:

"When we had left the old Government he had thought we had gotten rid
forever of the slavery agitation....But to his surprise he finds that
this Government assumes the power to arm the slaves, which involves
also the power of enamcipation....It was regarded as a confession of
despair and an abandonment of the ground upon which we had seceded from
the old Union. We had insisted that Congress had no right to interfere
with slavery, and upon the coming into power of the party who it was
known would assume and exercise that power, we seceded....and we
vindicated ourselves against the accusations of the abolitionists by
asserting that slavery was the best and happiest condition of the
negro. Now what does this proposition admit? The right of the central
Government to put slaves into the militia, and to emancipate at least
so many as shall be placed in the military service. It is a clear claim
of the central Government to emancipate the slaves."

"If we are right in passing this measure we were wrong in denying to
the old government the right to interfere with the institution of
slavery and to emancipate the slaves."

"He now believed....that arming and emancipating the slaves was an
abandonment of this contest - an abandonment of the grounds upon which
it had been undertaken."

The most important cause of the war was slavery by far.

Of course when you talk ablut the bravery of rebel soldiers, you have
to remember that the rebel armies were not defeated on the field of
battle so much as they melted away through desertion.

It should also be remembered that the "western" Union army, commanded
by Grant and later Sherman, went throughout the war advancing from
victory to victory with no major check on their operations, with the
exception of Chickamauga.

Why don't you start a thread extolling their military virtues?


Walt
Walt
2005-06-21 11:02:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Stevens
There were several factors involved in the American Civil War,
even pressure from the northern iron industry to destroy the
southern iron industry (both a military objective and a business
competitor) because it produced a higher quality product.
You won't show any such by appeal to the record.

Walt
Paul Stevens
2005-06-21 22:32:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Walt
Post by Paul Stevens
There were several factors involved in the American Civil War,
even pressure from the northern iron industry to destroy the
southern iron industry (both a military objective and a business
competitor) because it produced a higher quality product.
You won't show any such by appeal to the record.
I guess my professor just fabricated the whole thing, when
he covered the history of iron and steel production, in the
metals class.

Or perhaps the various books I have read, dealing with foundry
procedures, lied about the production methods used by the
southern iron industry producing a higher quality product,
with the northern iron industry methods producing a lower
quality iron (due to impurities introduced in the production
process).

The only reason the northern iron industry could compete with
the southern iron industry, was the northern iron industry's
higher production capacity (of a lower quality, weaker product).
--
Paul Stevens

"You can lead an idiot to knowledge,
but you can't make him think."
Walt
2005-06-22 00:15:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Stevens
Post by Walt
You won't show any such by appeal to the record.
I guess my professor just fabricated the whole thing, when
he covered the history of iron and steel production, in the
metals class.
Well, uh, that's pitifully weak.

Source it.

Walt
Paul Stevens
2005-06-22 02:14:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Walt
Post by Paul Stevens
Post by Walt
You won't show any such by appeal to the record.
I guess my professor just fabricated the whole thing, when
he covered the history of iron and steel production, in the
metals class.
Well, uh, that's pitifully weak.
Source it.
Do the research yourself. There should be plenty of texts
available on the history of the iron and steel industries.

You just might learn something... but I somehow doubt it.
--
Paul Stevens

"You can lead an idiot to knowledge,
but you can't make him think."
Walt
2005-06-22 13:48:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Stevens
Post by Walt
Post by Paul Stevens
I guess my professor just fabricated the whole thing, when
he covered the history of iron and steel production, in the
metals class.
Well, uh, that's pitifully weak.
Source it.
Do the research yourself. There should be plenty of texts
available on the history of the iron and steel industries.
It's your position. You support it.

Walt
Paul Stevens
2005-06-23 03:39:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Walt
Post by Paul Stevens
Post by Walt
Post by Paul Stevens
I guess my professor just fabricated the whole thing, when
he covered the history of iron and steel production, in the
metals class.
Well, uh, that's pitifully weak.
Source it.
Do the research yourself. There should be plenty of texts
available on the history of the iron and steel industries.
It's your position. You support it.
I presented it as an objection to your stated position, a
position you have still not proven.

1) How much time passed between the start of the American
Civil War, and the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation?
Explain the delay.

2) Were Lincoln's advisors unanimous in their support for
signing the Emancipation Proclamation? If not, why?

3) How many members of Congress supported the Emancipation
Proclamation? How many opposed it?

4) Did the Emancipation Proclamation free all slaves in all
states and US territories, or only in certain states and
territories? If it did not free all slaves in all states,
explain why. Include supporting quotes from the document,
in your answer.

5) One of Lincoln's problems in fighting the war, was keeping
the northern states happy enough to continue loaning their
state militias to fight the war. List Lincoln's actions
and speeches made to retain the support (for the war) of the
northern states. How frequently did Lincoln mention 'ending
slavery' in those efforts? Provide appropriate quotes.

and for extra credit:

List Bush's ties to the oil industry. What part did those
ties play in the decision to invade Iraq? How many textbooks
are likely to mention those ties, 100 years from now?
--
Paul Stevens

"You can lead an idiot to knowledge,
but you can't make him think."
Walt
2005-06-23 12:07:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Walt
Post by Paul Stevens
Post by Walt
Post by Paul Stevens
I guess my professor just fabricated the whole thing, when
he covered the history of iron and steel production, in the
metals class.
Well, uh, that's pitifully weak.
Source it.
Do the research yourself. There should be plenty of texts
available on the history of the iron and steel industries.
It's your position. You support it.
I presented it as an objection to your stated position, a
position you have still not proven.

It's your position. You support it.

Walt
Walt
2005-06-23 12:12:57 UTC
Permalink
The war was not begun to extinguish slavery, but to save the Union.

The EP freed slaves only in areas of the country in open rebellion to
the lawful government not under government control. That comported
with Lincoln's view of his war powers under the Constitution.

Lincoln wrote two famous letters on this subject.


To James Conkling:


"But to be plain, you are dissatisfied with me about the negro. Quite
likely there is a difference of opinion between you and myself upon
that
subject. I certainly wish that all men could be free, while I suppose
that
you do not. Yet I have neither adopted nor proposed any measure, which
is
not consistant even with your view, provided you are for the Union. I
suggested compensated emancipation; to which you replied you wished
not to
be taxed to buy negroes. But I had not asked you to be taxed to buy
negroes,
except in such way, as to save you from greater expense, to save the
Union
exclusively by other means. You dislike the emancipatio proclamation;
and
perhaps, would have it retracted. You say it is unconstitutional--I
think
differently. I think the Constitution invests the commander in chief
with the
law of war, in time of war. The most that can be said, if so much, is,
that
slaves are property. Is there--has there ever been--any question that
by the
law of war, property, both of enemies and friends, may be taken when
needed? And is it not needed whenever
taking it helps us, or hurts the enemy?


....but the proclamation, as law,
either is valid, or it is not valid. If it is not valid, it needs no
retraction. If it is valid, it can not be retracted, any more than the
dead can
be brought to life....The war has certainly progressed as favorably for
us,
since the issue of the proclamation as before. I know as fully as one
can know
the opinions of others that some of the commanders of our armies in the
field
who have given us some of most important successes, believe the
emancipation
policy and the use of colored troops, constitute the heaviest blow yet
dealt
the rebellion, and that at least one of those important successes could
not
have been achieved when it was but for the aid of black soldiers....I
submit
these opinions as being entitled to some weight against the objections,
often
urged, that emancipation, and arming the blacks, are unwise as military

measures, and were not adopted, as such, in good faith. You say you
will not
fight to free negroes. Some of them seem willing to fight for you; but
no
matter. Fight you then, exclusively to save the Union... negroes, like
other
people act upon motives.

Why should they do anything for us if we will do
nothing for them? If they stake their lives
for us, they must be prompted by the strongest motive--even the promise
of
freedom. And the promise, being made, must be kept....peace does not
appear as
distant as it did. I hope it will come soon, and come to stay; and so
come as
to worth the keeping in all future time. It will have then been proved
that,
among free men, there can be no successful appeal from the ballot to
the
bullet; and that they who take such appeal are sure to lose their case,
and pay
the cost. And then, there will be some black men, who can remember
that, with
silent tongue, and clenched teeth, and steady eye, and well-poised
bayonet they
have helped mankind on to this great consumation; while, I fear, there
will be
some white ones, unable to forget that, with malignant heart, and
deceitful
speech, have strove to hinder it. Still let us not be over-sanguine of
a speedy
final triumph. Let us be quite sober. Let us dilligently apply the
means, never
doubting that a just God, in his own good time, will give us the
rightful result."


8/24/63


And to A. G. Hodges:


"You ask me to put in writing the substance of what I verbally said the
other
day, in your presence, to Governor Bramlette and Senator Dixon. It was
about
as follows:


"I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is
wrong. I
can not remember when I did not so think, and feel. And yet I have
never
understood that the presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right
to
act upon this judgment and feeling. It was in the oath I took, that I
would,
to the utmost of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the
Constitution
of the United States. I could not take the office without taking the
oath.
Nor was it my view that I might take an oath to get power, and break
the
oath in using the power. I understood too, that in ordinary civil
administration this oath even forbade me to practically indulge my
primary
abstract judgment on the moral question of slavery. I have publically
declared this many times, and in many ways. And I aver that, to this
day, I
have done no official act in mere deference to my abstract judgment and

feeling on slavery. I did understand however that my oath to preserve
the
constitution to the best of my ability, imposed upon me the duty of
preserving by every indispensible means, that government--that
nation--of
which that constitution was the organic law. Was it possible to lose
the
nation, and preserve the constitution? By general law life and limb
must be
protected; yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a
life is
never wisely given to save a limb. I felt that measures, otherwise
unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensible to to
the
preservation of the of the Constitution, through the preservation of
the
nation. Right or wrong, I assumed this ground, and now avow it...When
in
March, and May and July 1862 I made earnest, and succcessive appeals to
the
border states to favor compensated emancipation, I believed the
indispensable neccessity for military emancipation and arming the
blacks
would come, unless averted by that measure. They declined the
proposition;
and I was, in my best judgment, driven to the alternative of either
surrendering the Union, and with it the Constitution, or of laying
strong
hand upon the colored element. I chose the latter. In choosing it, I
hoped
for greater gain than loss; but of this, I was not entirely confident.
More
than a year of trial now shows no loss by it in our foreign relations,
none
in our home popular sentiment, none in our white military force, no
loss any
how or any where. On the contrary, it shows a gain of quite one hundred
and
thirty thousand soldiers, seamen and laborers. These are palpable
facts,
about which there can be no cavilling. We have the men; and we could
not
have them without the measure.


And now let any Union man who complains of the measure, test himself by

writing down in one line that he is for subduing the rebellion by force
of
arms; and in the next, that he is for taking these hundred and thirty
thousand men from the Union side, and placing them where they would be
but
for the measure he condemns. If he can not face his case so stated, it
is
only because he can not face the truth.


I add a word which was not in the verbal conversation. In telling this
tale
I attempt no compliment to my own sagacity. I claim not to have
controlled
events, but confess plainly that events have controlled me. Now, at the
end
of three years struggle the Nation's condition is not what either
party, or
any man devised, or expected. God alone can claim it. Whither it is
tending
seems plain. If God now wills the removal of a great wrong, and wills
also
that we of the North as well as you of the South, shall pay for our
complicity in that wrong, impartial history will find therein new cause
to
attest and revere the justice and goodness of God."


4/4/64


Quoted from "Lincoln; Speeches and Writings, 1859-65, Library of the
Americas.


Walt
Joseph Crowe
2005-06-23 14:10:43 UTC
Permalink
Hi Paul, et al,

I hesitate to weigh in on this because people who have bought into
the cult of Lincoln seem never to assimilate his actual words and
actions. That said, I will respond to some of your points. For
interested readers, two books about that era bear reading. The first,
older book, Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men by J.R. Hummel
details the freeing of slaves and suggests that slavery was an issue in
the War Between the States (it was NOT a civil war by any definition),
but that the abolition was done as a bit of a red herring to get the
abolitionists on board with Lincoln's goals. The second book, The Real
Lincoln by Thomas DiLorenzo details Lincoln's own words that indicate he
had no interest in freeing slaves. Lincoln's background was that he was
a proponent of the Whig philosophy that favored a strong central
government. Lincoln set precedent in U.S. history by packing the supreme
court, dropping the gold standard, creating an income tax, shutting down
newspapers, stifling dissent, jailing opponents....the list is long.
George W. Bush is Lincoln's philosophical heir.
Post by Paul Stevens
I presented it as an objection to your stated position, a
position you have still not proven.
1) How much time passed between the start of the American
Civil War, and the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation?
Explain the delay.
The War Between the States lasted almost four years exactly and
officially started with the firing on Fort Sumpter on April 12, 1861.
The Emancipation Proclamation was dated January 1, 1863, nearly two
years after the start of the war.
Post by Paul Stevens
2) Were Lincoln's advisors unanimous in their support for
signing the Emancipation Proclamation? If not, why?
Not at all. The northerners, generally, did not want free blacks
competing for jobs.
Post by Paul Stevens
3) How many members of Congress supported the Emancipation
Proclamation? How many opposed it?
4) Did the Emancipation Proclamation free all slaves in all
states and US territories, or only in certain states and
territories? If it did not free all slaves in all states,
explain why. Include supporting quotes from the document,
in your answer.
No, the EP only "freed" slaves in the confederate states. It was like
the U.S. passing a law for some internal facet of Austria....had no real
legal teeth. Don't get me wrong, the confederacy was probably only a
little less stupid as a political entity than the U.S. The slavery issue
that people keep bringing up only mattered, though, to a very small
minority of white southerners, those who actually held slaves. A lot of
others, apparantly, did not cotton to having their homes invaded...a
situation similar to what Iraqis are now experiencing.
Post by Paul Stevens
5) One of Lincoln's problems in fighting the war, was keeping
the northern states happy enough to continue loaning their
state militias to fight the war. List Lincoln's actions
and speeches made to retain the support (for the war) of the
northern states. How frequently did Lincoln mention 'ending
slavery' in those efforts? Provide appropriate quotes.
There was open opposition to Lincoln's war throughout the north. New
York threatened to secede more than once and there were draft riots in
NYC. Lincoln turned a deaf ear to that opposition, much like Bush does
now. Lincoln jailed dissenters.....sort of like the Bush regime has done
in the last few years (look up "free speech zones" for more information)
Post by Paul Stevens
List Bush's ties to the oil industry. What part did those
ties play in the decision to invade Iraq? How many textbooks
are likely to mention those ties, 100 years from now?
Hard to say. The things that have changed the U.S. since the WBtS
have lead to an environment where it's politically incorrect to discuss
facts about some former leaders. In my reading, Lincoln was the worst
tyrant in this country's history. But Bush is on track to exceed him.
--
Joseph Crowe
Faye
2005-06-23 16:23:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Crowe
Hi Paul, et al,
I hesitate to weigh in on this because people who have bought into
the cult of Lincoln seem never to assimilate his actual words and
actions.
That is exactly why I usually don't any more, Joseph, but I always find your
comments on the subject most enlightening and quite to the point. Lincoln's
handling of affairs seems to have assured that there will always be a a
great divide as long as there is this nation. I had hoped that with
generations past our own there might be a coming together, but, if anything,
I see the fissure widening.

That said, I will respond to some of your points. For
Post by Joseph Crowe
interested readers, two books about that era bear reading. The first,
older book, Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men by J.R. Hummel
details the freeing of slaves and suggests that slavery was an issue in
the War Between the States (it was NOT a civil war by any definition),
but that the abolition was done as a bit of a red herring to get the
abolitionists on board with Lincoln's goals. The second book, The Real
Lincoln by Thomas DiLorenzo details Lincoln's own words that indicate he
had no interest in freeing slaves. Lincoln's background was that he was
a proponent of the Whig philosophy that favored a strong central
government. Lincoln set precedent in U.S. history by packing the supreme
court, dropping the gold standard, creating an income tax, shutting down
newspapers, stifling dissent, jailing opponents....the list is long.
George W. Bush is Lincoln's philosophical heir.
Twins sons of different mothers, a primary difference being simply that
Bush's theatre is global.
Post by Joseph Crowe
Post by Paul Stevens
I presented it as an objection to your stated position, a
position you have still not proven.
1) How much time passed between the start of the American
Civil War, and the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation?
Explain the delay.
The War Between the States lasted almost four years exactly and
officially started with the firing on Fort Sumpter on April 12, 1861.
The Emancipation Proclamation was dated January 1, 1863, nearly two
years after the start of the war.
Let us clearly note that slavery was an abomination >period<, but note that
it was legal, a bitter battle to be fought in Congress. To say that slavery
was the reason for the war and to tout Lincoln's actions as proper is to say
that when a president doesn't like a law, he can just send troops to kill
those who make use of that law and destroy anybody and anything along the
way. A not unfitting analogy IMHO would be Bush's deciding he wanted no
more abortion and, though the high court has ruled it legal under our laws,
his sending in troops to kill abortion doctors, those who have abortions,
and anyone else who gets in his way, rather than working with lawmakers to
change the law. (I should not give him ideas.)
Post by Joseph Crowe
Post by Paul Stevens
2) Were Lincoln's advisors unanimous in their support for
signing the Emancipation Proclamation? If not, why?
Not at all. The northerners, generally, did not want free blacks
competing for jobs.
Post by Paul Stevens
3) How many members of Congress supported the Emancipation
Proclamation? How many opposed it?
4) Did the Emancipation Proclamation free all slaves in all
states and US territories, or only in certain states and
territories? If it did not free all slaves in all states,
explain why. Include supporting quotes from the document,
in your answer.
No, the EP only "freed" slaves in the confederate states. It was like
the U.S. passing a law for some internal facet of Austria....had no real
legal teeth. Don't get me wrong, the confederacy was probably only a
little less stupid as a political entity than the U.S. The slavery issue
that people keep bringing up only mattered, though, to a very small
minority of white southerners, those who actually held slaves. A lot of
others, apparantly, did not cotton to having their homes invaded...a
situation similar to what Iraqis are now experiencing.
Exactly. If everybody had stayed home, there would have been no war.
*They* came *here* to add injury to insult. Had more Southerner's followed
the example of "Morgan and his terrible men" and taken the war to the north,
perhaps today there would be more empathic feelings by northerers about
being invaded. But he went out of bounds, it was not about going there, it
was about their coming here. Deserters? How would northern men have felt
about being many miles from their women, children, and homes if Southern
troops had been up there starving and burning them out, stealing everything
they needed for mere survival? When the battle of Nashville was fought, men
could see their homes from the battlefield. At Franklin, Captain Tod
Carter, who had not seen home for three years, yelled, "Follow me boys, I'm
almost home," when he was within running distance. He was shot as he made
his way there and died in his home two days later. They were here. Right
here.
Post by Joseph Crowe
Post by Paul Stevens
5) One of Lincoln's problems in fighting the war, was keeping
the northern states happy enough to continue loaning their
state militias to fight the war. List Lincoln's actions
and speeches made to retain the support (for the war) of the
northern states. How frequently did Lincoln mention 'ending
slavery' in those efforts? Provide appropriate quotes.
There was open opposition to Lincoln's war throughout the north. New
York threatened to secede more than once and there were draft riots in
NYC. Lincoln turned a deaf ear to that opposition, much like Bush does
now. Lincoln jailed dissenters.....sort of like the Bush regime has done
in the last few years (look up "free speech zones" for more information)
Post by Paul Stevens
List Bush's ties to the oil industry. What part did those
ties play in the decision to invade Iraq? How many textbooks
are likely to mention those ties, 100 years from now?
Hard to say. The things that have changed the U.S. since the WBtS
have lead to an environment where it's politically incorrect to discuss
facts about some former leaders.
Insuring enduring divisiveness. Similarly, since WWII it has become
politically incorrect to discuss overpopulation.

In my reading, Lincoln was the worst
Post by Joseph Crowe
tyrant in this country's history. But Bush is on track to exceed him.
My sentiments exactly, Joseph. Thank you for stating them so eloquently.

Faye
Paul Stevens
2005-06-24 02:09:02 UTC
Permalink
(snip)
Post by Faye
Post by Joseph Crowe
Post by Paul Stevens
List Bush's ties to the oil industry. What part did those
ties play in the decision to invade Iraq? How many textbooks
are likely to mention those ties, 100 years from now?
Hard to say. The things that have changed the U.S. since the WBtS
have lead to an environment where it's politically incorrect to discuss
facts about some former leaders.
Insuring enduring divisiveness. Similarly, since WWII it has become
politically incorrect to discuss overpopulation.
In my reading, Lincoln was the worst
Post by Joseph Crowe
tyrant in this country's history. But Bush is on track to exceed him.
My sentiments exactly, Joseph. Thank you for stating them so eloquently.
Considering recent rulings, I'm beginning to believe the Supreme
Court of the United States is the biggest current threat to our
country.

In the recent medical marijuana case, the Supreme Court
essentially decided that the 'commerce clause' covers pretty
much anything the government decides it covers, regardless of
whether or not any commerce is involved or state lines crossed.
Anything you own or make for your own use can be taxed by the
federal government, even if the tax law is blatantly worded as
a complete ban that can never collect any taxes.

Today, they stated that the government can take private property
and turn it over to any private developer they feel can generate
more taxes. You no longer own your home, you are only renting
it (by paying taxes) until someone else comes along and promises
to pay more rent (then you get the eviction notice).
--
Paul Stevens

"You can lead an idiot to knowledge,
but you can't make him think."
Joseph Crowe
2005-06-24 03:47:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Stevens
(snip)
Post by Faye
Post by Joseph Crowe
Post by Paul Stevens
List Bush's ties to the oil industry. What part did those
ties play in the decision to invade Iraq? How many textbooks
are likely to mention those ties, 100 years from now?
Hard to say. The things that have changed the U.S. since the WBtS
have lead to an environment where it's politically incorrect to discuss
facts about some former leaders.
Insuring enduring divisiveness. Similarly, since WWII it has become
politically incorrect to discuss overpopulation.
In my reading, Lincoln was the worst
Post by Joseph Crowe
tyrant in this country's history. But Bush is on track to exceed him.
My sentiments exactly, Joseph. Thank you for stating them so eloquently.
Considering recent rulings, I'm beginning to believe the Supreme
Court of the United States is the biggest current threat to our
country.
You are correct, partly. The Patriot Act and Real ID are extremely
harmful to individual liberty and right to privacy.
Post by Paul Stevens
In the recent medical marijuana case, the Supreme Court
essentially decided that the 'commerce clause' covers pretty
much anything the government decides it covers, regardless of
whether or not any commerce is involved or state lines crossed.
Anything you own or make for your own use can be taxed by the
federal government, even if the tax law is blatantly worded as
a complete ban that can never collect any taxes.
This is exactly why Lincoln's precedence was so harmful to the
concepts of individual liberty.
Post by Paul Stevens
Today, they stated that the government can take private property
and turn it over to any private developer they feel can generate
more taxes. You no longer own your home, you are only renting
it (by paying taxes) until someone else comes along and promises
to pay more rent (then you get the eviction notice).
This is not new news...this type of action by governments at all
levels has been happening since the concept of eminent domain first
reared its ugly head.
MrWonderful
2005-06-24 04:26:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Stevens
Today, they stated that the government can take private property
and turn it over to any private developer they feel can generate
more taxes. You no longer own your home, you are only renting
it (by paying taxes) until someone else comes along and promises
to pay more rent (then you get the eviction notice).
This is not new news...this type of action by governments at all
levels has been happening since the concept of eminent domain first
reared its ugly head.


IMO, today's 'eminent domain' expansion ruling is quite very "new
news~!" One might even say, "UNPRECEDENTED~!" :)

While a CNN conservative anchor revealed that the SCJustices appointed
by Rupublucuns do not satisfy the conservative bent of
idyutconservative voters, we see in this ruling a pragmatism
uncharacteristic of the Supreme Court.

Intellectualism and integrated logical consistency generally precludes
"conservative" rulings, as evidenced by the above referenced dismay of
the conservative electorate; but the ruling in this case strikes me as
quite very unusual~!
I'm just guessing, but I suppose the 5-4 ruling as 5 "conservatives" vs
4 "liberals." How does this strike the small government, anarchist,
libertarians who voted that the "conservative" Crapubluscums represent
their interests?
Pragmatically, I like the ruling; Intellectually, I do not.
Now I can move to Nashville and begin to lobby for the eminent domain
confiscation of those 80 acres I researched, which failed for the very
reason which is now made possible by this ruling.
I'll be glad to kill rant for you in my spare time~! : )
Lalahahahahaha
Faye
2005-06-24 06:38:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by MrWonderful
I'm just guessing, but I suppose the 5-4 ruling as 5 "conservatives" vs
4 "liberals."
Guess again.

Faye
Kent Finnell
2005-06-24 10:55:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Faye
Post by MrWonderful
I'm just guessing, but I suppose the 5-4 ruling as 5 "conservatives" vs
4 "liberals."
Guess again.
Faye
That explosion you heard early this morning was MrPervertful's head.
--
Kent Finnell
From the Music City USA
Paul Stevens
2005-06-24 11:07:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Faye
Post by MrWonderful
I'm just guessing, but I suppose the 5-4 ruling as 5 "conservatives" vs
4 "liberals."
Guess again.
Faye
If I'm not mistaken, the 4 against were Thomas, Scalia, Rienquist
and O'Connor.
--
Paul Stevens

"You can lead an idiot to knowledge,
but you can't make him think."
Joseph Crowe
2005-06-24 14:34:15 UTC
Permalink
Hi Paul,
Post by Paul Stevens
Post by Faye
Post by MrWonderful
I'm just guessing, but I suppose the 5-4 ruling as 5 "conservatives" vs
4 "liberals."
Guess again.
Faye
If I'm not mistaken, the 4 against were Thomas, Scalia, Rienquist
and O'Connor.
This can hardly be viewed as surprising. The left leaning crowd has
never been particularly comfortable with the concept of private property
rights. The original poster is confused by calling left leaning folks
"liberals" because the concepts of liberty from which the term liberal
originated is in diametric opposition to leftist philosophy.
--
Joseph Crowe
Olin Murrell
2005-06-24 23:00:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Crowe
Hi Paul,
Post by Paul Stevens
Post by Faye
Post by MrWonderful
I'm just guessing, but I suppose the 5-4 ruling as 5 "conservatives" vs
4 "liberals."
Guess again.
Faye
If I'm not mistaken, the 4 against were Thomas, Scalia, Rienquist
and O'Connor.
This can hardly be viewed as surprising. The left leaning crowd has
never been particularly comfortable with the concept of private property
rights. The original poster is confused by calling left leaning folks
"liberals" because the concepts of liberty from which the term liberal
originated is in diametric opposition to leftist philosophy.
Understand this... I've never been all that enamoured with the concept of
eminent domain, but there are several ways to look at the issue. Texas, as
Joseph knows, has a condemnation jury, and if you don't like the deal you're
getting from a city, you can take your case to them. In the case of a guy
who owned property in the way of an Austin landfill several years ago, they
came to take a piece and he said, "No, take the whole bloc for a fair
price."

Nope. They'd condemn and give him what they wanted to give. Condemnation
jury said, "Nope... the check you write is for fair market value."

This happened not once, not twice, but three times and the city wound up
with all the man's property... for a price nearly three times what he'd
originally asked for it.

When you are talking about infrastructure for a given municipality, there's
at least some justification... perhaps not much, but some.

There is NO justification for the use of eminent domain for profit-bound
ventures that are entirely in the private sector. None. Zip. Diddly. Nada.

The only argument the majority in this decision made that made any sense at
all was that it should be up to states and cities, rather than the federal
government to write whatever laws they deem prudent on the issue.

Within that very narrow point, I can find something with which to agree. I'd
say the voters and elected officials in pick-your-city, pick-your-state,
have a far better grasp of what's needed and what the minority will put up
with than any idiot in Washington, DC.

More to the point, I can't recall where federal prohibitions have EVER
stopped even one NFL team from conning a city into using eminent domain to
build a new stadium, and the feds let the contracts to build a
super-conducting super collider in Central Texas some years ago, and they
damned well tried to use eminent domain until pork barrel specialists in
other states managed to kill the whole project... not, you understand,
because they thought it a bad idea, but more because it wasn't in THEIR
districts. In the process, they killed a market they created, and took a
goodly bunch of small businesses that had built up to serve it.

I don't think I trust Washington to make local decisions at all. To that
end, this ruling is probably a good one. But, it's badly written and being
(probably correct) to mean when Bubba Eugene wants to build a new outlet
mall where your house is, just go ahead and call the moving van, and that
sucks big time.
Faye
2005-06-24 23:11:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Olin Murrell
Understand this... I've never been all that enamoured with the concept of
eminent domain, but there are several ways to look at the issue. Texas, as
Joseph knows, has a condemnation jury, and if you don't like the deal you're
getting from a city, you can take your case to them. In the case of a guy
who owned property in the way of an Austin landfill several years ago, they
came to take a piece and he said, "No, take the whole bloc for a fair
price."
Nope. They'd condemn and give him what they wanted to give. Condemnation
jury said, "Nope... the check you write is for fair market value."
This happened not once, not twice, but three times and the city wound up
with all the man's property... for a price nearly three times what he'd
originally asked for it.
It doesn't matter what price your offered if you don't want to sell.
Post by Olin Murrell
When you are talking about infrastructure for a given municipality, there's
at least some justification... perhaps not much, but some.
I disagree. Totally. Been there, fought that more than once.
Post by Olin Murrell
There is NO justification for the use of eminent domain for profit-bound
ventures that are entirely in the private sector. None. Zip. Diddly. Nada.
As Joseph noted, it is nothing new, but this ruling basically announces that
a giant *for sale* sign has been stuck on every piece of property in
America. Shades of King Andrew and Governor Lumpkin--any means necessary to
get that pot of gold.

Faye
Olin Murrell
2005-06-25 00:37:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Faye
Post by Olin Murrell
Understand this... I've never been all that enamoured with the concept of
eminent domain, but there are several ways to look at the issue. Texas, as
Joseph knows, has a condemnation jury, and if you don't like the deal
you're
Post by Olin Murrell
getting from a city, you can take your case to them. In the case of a guy
who owned property in the way of an Austin landfill several years ago,
they
Post by Olin Murrell
came to take a piece and he said, "No, take the whole bloc for a fair
price."
Nope. They'd condemn and give him what they wanted to give. Condemnation
jury said, "Nope... the check you write is for fair market value."
This happened not once, not twice, but three times and the city wound up
with all the man's property... for a price nearly three times what he'd
originally asked for it.
It doesn't matter what price your offered if you don't want to sell.
Post by Olin Murrell
When you are talking about infrastructure for a given municipality,
there's
Post by Olin Murrell
at least some justification... perhaps not much, but some.
I disagree. Totally. Been there, fought that more than once.
Post by Olin Murrell
There is NO justification for the use of eminent domain for profit-bound
ventures that are entirely in the private sector. None. Zip. Diddly. Nada.
As Joseph noted, it is nothing new, but this ruling basically announces that
a giant *for sale* sign has been stuck on every piece of property in
America. Shades of King Andrew and Governor Lumpkin--any means necessary to
get that pot of gold.
Faye
Yes, Faye... that's all duly noted... IN the response, which I honestly
don't believe you read, considering what you wrote above.

It almost seems to be the "you're either with me or against me" mentality
that helped to get us all into this mess.

Care to 'splain to me how the feds have EVER stopped a development? Care to
'splain to me why such regulation, up or down, should not be in the purview
of individual states?

Ya want to start a parade down to the lege here in Nashburg to 'splain to
THOSE mental midgets that we want eminent domain used sparingly, if at all,
and NEVER for someone's private venture profit? I'm there with you.

If, on the other hand, there is not to ever be any valid reason for a
community to build or expand infrastructure, 'fraid we're on opposite sides
of the fence.

Zoning laws can be every bit as onerous as eminent domain, but frankly, I'm
kind of elated my next door neighbor can't start raising hogs... even though
that means he can't (should he, for some reason, want to) use his land as he
sees fit.

In one of the examples you snipped (no, not a whine, merely an observation),
I offered one landowner a hundred acre farm for HIS hundred acre farm he
didn't want to sell... heads-up... to take his "problem" off his hands. He
refused, and that's certainly his right, BUT I don't recall there ever being
a guarantee that once you pay for a piece of land that it's gonna remain the
same forever.

So, it would appear that on some parts we agree, and on others, we disagree.
It would also appear that from your view, we are entirely at loggerheads and
I find that a bit sad... but if that's how it must be... oh well.
Faye
2005-06-25 05:24:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Olin Murrell
Yes, Faye... that's all duly noted... IN the response, which I honestly
don't believe you read, considering what you wrote above.
It almost seems to be the "you're either with me or against me" mentality
that helped to get us all into this mess.
Care to 'splain to me how the feds have EVER stopped a development? Care to
'splain to me why such regulation, up or down, should not be in the purview
of individual states?
Ya want to start a parade down to the lege here in Nashburg to 'splain to
THOSE mental midgets that we want eminent domain used sparingly, if at all,
and NEVER for someone's private venture profit? I'm there with you.
If, on the other hand, there is not to ever be any valid reason for a
community to build or expand infrastructure, 'fraid we're on opposite sides
of the fence.
Yes, I read every word. Your statement here "there is not to ever be any
valid reason for a community to build or expand infrastructure" I agree
with. There may be a valid reason for expansion, but, nevertheless, as I
said above, I totally disagree with government's being able to take private
property against an owner's will for any purposes at any price. It's wrong,
bad wrong. I've lived the nightmare of fighting this and believe with all
my heart that no government at any level should be able to put citizens
through such torment. So we'll have to talk across the fence. : )
Post by Olin Murrell
Zoning laws can be every bit as onerous as eminent domain, but frankly, I'm
kind of elated my next door neighbor can't start raising hogs... even though
that means he can't (should he, for some reason, want to) use his land as he
sees fit.
In one of the examples you snipped (no, not a whine, merely an
observation),
Post by Olin Murrell
I offered one landowner a hundred acre farm for HIS hundred acre farm he
didn't want to sell... heads-up... to take his "problem" off his hands. He
refused, and that's certainly his right, BUT I don't recall there ever being
a guarantee that once you pay for a piece of land that it's gonna remain the
same forever.
If the owner wants to sell fine. But, believe me, I have seen wholly
bewildered looks on the faces of some developers and urban "planners" as
they were forced to come to grips with the fact that there are actually
people out there who don't have a price.
Post by Olin Murrell
So, it would appear that on some parts we agree, and on others, we disagree.
It would also appear that from your view, we are entirely at loggerheads and
I find that a bit sad... but if that's how it must be... oh well.
Truly, Olin, I wouldn't wish what we went through at the hands of local and
state government off on anyone. The whole concept is wrong IMHO.

Faye
Faye
2005-06-25 05:30:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Faye
Yes, I read every word. Your statement here "there is not to ever be any
valid reason for a community to build or expand infrastructure" I agree
with.
I mean I agree that there are reasons to expand, yes, but not if it requires
taking land against the owner's wishes.

Re: snipping, it is my custom to snip everything to which I am not directly
responding, not a slight towards you.

Faye
Jim Garrett
2005-06-25 06:32:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Faye
Re: snipping, it is my custom to snip everything to which I am not directly
responding, not a slight towards you.
Thank you.

Jim
Olin Murrell
2005-06-25 15:20:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Faye
Post by Faye
Re: snipping, it is my custom to snip everything to which I am not directly
responding, not a slight towards you.
Thank you.
Jim
Oh, good grief. Some snip and some don't. Some top post. Some bottom post.
Some intersperse to answer individual points. And, most, it would appear,
seem to believe their method is the only one at all effecacious. I prefer
trying to go with the flow, but I don't always make it.
Jim Garrett
2005-06-26 12:27:56 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 10:20:29 -0500, "Olin Murrell"
Post by Olin Murrell
Oh, good grief. Some snip and some don't.
As you point out, snipping seems to be a personal thing. Even
though I'm still on dial-up, the old arguments about bandwidth and
server space, etc., are pretty much things of the past. Still, I
really don't care to read or otherwise muck my way through 20, 80, or
200 lines of stuff I've already read before, especially when most of
it is largely irrelevant to the new content. That's *my* personal
preference. Ain't nothing to going back and reading a previous
message if one needs more context.

What I find especially lovely (note sarcasm) is when the whole first
screen of a message, or more, is nothing but attributions.

In keeping with the concept that brevity is the soul of wit, I have
my news reader set to skip messages over 200 lines. I can manually
override that, which I sometimes do. Most of the times I've spot
checked, that setting saves me from reading a bunch of junk not worth
reading.

Jim
Olin Murrell
2005-06-26 16:02:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Garrett
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 10:20:29 -0500, "Olin Murrell"
Post by Olin Murrell
Oh, good grief. Some snip and some don't.
As you point out, snipping seems to be a personal thing. Even
though I'm still on dial-up, the old arguments about bandwidth and
server space, etc., are pretty much things of the past. Still, I
really don't care to read or otherwise muck my way through 20, 80, or
200 lines of stuff I've already read before, especially when most of
it is largely irrelevant to the new content. That's *my* personal
preference. Ain't nothing to going back and reading a previous
message if one needs more context.
For me, it's mostly a matter of trying to post according to the practice of
the person I'm responding to. Some will whine about their precious prose
being snipped to the exclusion of even discussing the point at hand.

As noted in this thread, I observed a snippage I considered relevant, but
also specifically pointed out it was an observation, not a whine.

Also as noted, I don't always hit my target and sometimes I do get a little
lazy in snipping.
Post by Jim Garrett
What I find especially lovely (note sarcasm) is when the whole first
screen of a message, or more, is nothing but attributions.
In keeping with the concept that brevity is the soul of wit, I have
my news reader set to skip messages over 200 lines. I can manually
override that, which I sometimes do. Most of the times I've spot
checked, that setting saves me from reading a bunch of junk not worth
reading.
Probably something close to 100 percent of Usenet could fall into that
category, as it all is just a bunch of us sitting around "talking" about
stuff we have little to no control over.
Olin Murrell
2005-06-25 05:46:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Olin Murrell
Post by Olin Murrell
Yes, Faye... that's all duly noted... IN the response, which I honestly
don't believe you read, considering what you wrote above.
It almost seems to be the "you're either with me or against me" mentality
that helped to get us all into this mess.
Care to 'splain to me how the feds have EVER stopped a development? Care
to
Post by Olin Murrell
'splain to me why such regulation, up or down, should not be in the
purview
Post by Olin Murrell
of individual states?
Ya want to start a parade down to the lege here in Nashburg to 'splain to
THOSE mental midgets that we want eminent domain used sparingly, if at
all,
Post by Olin Murrell
and NEVER for someone's private venture profit? I'm there with you.
If, on the other hand, there is not to ever be any valid reason for a
community to build or expand infrastructure, 'fraid we're on opposite
sides
Post by Olin Murrell
of the fence.
Yes, I read every word. Your statement here "there is not to ever be any
valid reason for a community to build or expand infrastructure" I agree
with. There may be a valid reason for expansion, but, nevertheless, as I
said above, I totally disagree with government's being able to take private
property against an owner's will for any purposes at any price.
If there's valid reason to expand, 9 landowners "in the way" agree and a
tenth objects, it leads to cities designed like San Antonio, which is sort
of a human jigsaw puzzle, put together from spare parts. Nashville's an
extraordinarily well planned city, from a street point of view, compared to
that. The very large city of Houston has no zoning, which makes for some
truly entertaining property value fights when you have a low-end commercial
zone, backed up to fairly nice housing, backed up to a slum.

Somewhere, there has to be a balance. Where is it to be?

It's wrong,
Post by Olin Murrell
bad wrong. I've lived the nightmare of fighting this and believe with all
my heart that no government at any level should be able to put citizens
through such torment. So we'll have to talk across the fence. : )
And, the alternative is often allowing development to creep up on property
and with land being taxed at best use valuations, just squeeze owners out at
even lower, fire-sale prices. I've seen it work both ways. Me, if the
market's gonna force me out, I'd much rather get more money than less.
Post by Olin Murrell
Post by Olin Murrell
Zoning laws can be every bit as onerous as eminent domain, but frankly,
I'm
Post by Olin Murrell
kind of elated my next door neighbor can't start raising hogs... even
though
Post by Olin Murrell
that means he can't (should he, for some reason, want to) use his land as
he
Post by Olin Murrell
sees fit.
In one of the examples you snipped (no, not a whine, merely an
observation),
Post by Olin Murrell
I offered one landowner a hundred acre farm for HIS hundred acre farm he
didn't want to sell... heads-up... to take his "problem" off his hands. He
refused, and that's certainly his right, BUT I don't recall there ever
being
Post by Olin Murrell
a guarantee that once you pay for a piece of land that it's gonna remain
the
Post by Olin Murrell
same forever.
If the owner wants to sell fine. But, believe me, I have seen wholly
bewildered looks on the faces of some developers and urban "planners" as
they were forced to come to grips with the fact that there are actually
people out there who don't have a price.
And, I've seen the bewildered looks on the faces of folks who don't have a
price when reality sets in and they're forced to sell from other pressures
at even lower prices.
Post by Olin Murrell
Post by Olin Murrell
So, it would appear that on some parts we agree, and on others, we
disagree.
Post by Olin Murrell
It would also appear that from your view, we are entirely at loggerheads
and
Post by Olin Murrell
I find that a bit sad... but if that's how it must be... oh well.
Truly, Olin, I wouldn't wish what we went through at the hands of local and
state government off on anyone. The whole concept is wrong IMHO.
And you think Washington is really gonna have any more compassion for a
local landowner's plight? Seriously, and I do mean seriously, doubt it.
Heard my grandparents and their friends tell too many stories about the
goverment men who came to kill the cattle they were planning on eating to
help shore up beef markets during the Depression to ever believe Washington
knows more about my home than I do.

I'm not arguing that eminent domain is a great idea... merely that if it's
to be used, better to have the laws governing it be made at the local level,
rather than at the federal level. And again, it is the ONLY point the
majority in this decision made that makes any sense at all... i.e. it IS up
to the states to write those laws.
Faye
2005-06-25 07:14:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Olin Murrell
I'm not arguing that eminent domain is a great idea... merely that if it's
to be used, better to have the laws governing it be made at the local level,
rather than at the federal level. And again, it is the ONLY point the
majority in this decision made that makes any sense at all... i.e. it IS up
to the states to write those laws.
That's exactly why I started there today, at the state level. "Try and
fail, but don't fail to try." Anger can move me to action faster than any
other emotion, and this ruling is giving me flashbacks to that awful battle
we fought and to the anger and resentment towards government that it left in
my Spirit. It changed me forever.

Faye
Olin Murrell
2005-06-25 15:17:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Olin Murrell
Post by Olin Murrell
I'm not arguing that eminent domain is a great idea... merely that if it's
to be used, better to have the laws governing it be made at the local
level,
Post by Olin Murrell
rather than at the federal level. And again, it is the ONLY point the
majority in this decision made that makes any sense at all... i.e. it IS
up
Post by Olin Murrell
to the states to write those laws.
That's exactly why I started there today, at the state level. "Try and
fail, but don't fail to try." Anger can move me to action faster than any
other emotion, and this ruling is giving me flashbacks to that awful battle
we fought and to the anger and resentment towards government that it left in
my Spirit. It changed me forever.
Having fought and won a fight of equal consequence myself, my hat's off to
you. And, nobody, certainly not me, is holding local government up on any
pedestal... merely noting that they have the better view and are a lot
closer to the folks who pay 'em
MrWonderful
2005-06-24 18:27:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by MrWonderful
I'm just guessing, but I suppose the 5-4 ruling as 5 "conservatives" vs
4 "liberals."
Guess again.


Thank you for your insignificant reply to my *innocent* supposition
seeking to explain this UNPRECEDENTED demolition of property rights by
the USSCt.
I now am informed that the 'liberal' Ct members voted this ruling, but
if you ever actually *do* have a point, please feel free to express it.
hahahahahahaha
Do you now see the 'liberals' as the enemy? What effect, if any, does
this ruling have on your long held belief systems?
If this is a cause of such import for which you would consider dying,
why not kill the offender instead of the victim? I just don't
understand some people~!
hahahahahahaha : ) Lala
Faye
2005-06-24 22:21:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by MrWonderful
Thank you for your insignificant reply to my *innocent* supposition
Perhaps you should do some minimal research before showing your ASSumption.
Post by MrWonderful
seeking to explain this UNPRECEDENTED demolition of property rights by
the USSCt.
I now am informed that the 'liberal' Ct members voted this ruling, but
if you ever actually *do* have a point, please feel free to express it.
I have done so today with a lawmaker with whom I've fought other issues of
government encroachment.

Faye
MrWonderful
2005-06-24 23:46:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by MrWonderful
Thank you for your insignificant reply to my *innocent* supposition
Perhaps you should do some minimal research before showing your
ASSumption.


It wasn't an assumption, it was a supposition~! So, I didn't show you
my ASS; I showed you your supper~! Which btw, is a foot looooooooong~!
hahahahahaha
Post by MrWonderful
seeking to explain this UNPRECEDENTED demolition of property rights by
the USSCt.
I now am informed that the 'liberal' Ct members voted this ruling, but
if you ever actually *do* have a point, please feel free to express it.
I have done so today with a lawmaker with whom I've fought other issues
of
government encroachment.


Don't tell me mild mannered Faye got on the phone~! hahahahahaha Did
you give 'em wut fer~!? hahahahaha
What about those librels voting on the side of big biz~!? Us business
moguls gotta make a living, too~! We're *insatiable* when it comes to
stealing~! Finally, at long last, we can steal your homes rat out from
unner ya~! : ) Lala

Faye
Faye
2005-06-27 01:54:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by MrWonderful
: ) Lala
Reminding us again that *everything's* not bigger in Texas. : )

Faye
MrWonderful
2005-06-27 04:41:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by MrWonderful
: ) Lala
Reminding us again that *everything's* not bigger in Texas. : )

Faye


If you know anyone with one that's bigger than mine~!....
Let's have a contest~! hahahahahaha : ) Lala
Faye
2005-06-27 16:33:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by MrWonderful
If you know anyone with one that's bigger than mine~!....
Let's have a contest~! hahahahahaha : ) Lala
The State Fair is in September. Pre-registration is required.

http://www.tennesseestatefair.org/EntryLivestockForm.pdf

Faye

Paul Stevens
2005-06-24 10:58:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Crowe
Post by Paul Stevens
(snip)
Post by Faye
Post by Joseph Crowe
Post by Paul Stevens
List Bush's ties to the oil industry. What part did those
ties play in the decision to invade Iraq? How many textbooks
are likely to mention those ties, 100 years from now?
Hard to say. The things that have changed the U.S. since the WBtS
have lead to an environment where it's politically incorrect to discuss
facts about some former leaders.
Insuring enduring divisiveness. Similarly, since WWII it has become
politically incorrect to discuss overpopulation.
In my reading, Lincoln was the worst
Post by Joseph Crowe
tyrant in this country's history. But Bush is on track to exceed him.
My sentiments exactly, Joseph. Thank you for stating them so eloquently.
Considering recent rulings, I'm beginning to believe the Supreme
Court of the United States is the biggest current threat to our
country.
You are correct, partly. The Patriot Act and Real ID are extremely
harmful to individual liberty and right to privacy.
Post by Paul Stevens
In the recent medical marijuana case, the Supreme Court
essentially decided that the 'commerce clause' covers pretty
much anything the government decides it covers, regardless of
whether or not any commerce is involved or state lines crossed.
Anything you own or make for your own use can be taxed by the
federal government, even if the tax law is blatantly worded as
a complete ban that can never collect any taxes.
This is exactly why Lincoln's precedence was so harmful to the
concepts of individual liberty.
Post by Paul Stevens
Today, they stated that the government can take private property
and turn it over to any private developer they feel can generate
more taxes. You no longer own your home, you are only renting
it (by paying taxes) until someone else comes along and promises
to pay more rent (then you get the eviction notice).
This is not new news...this type of action by governments at all
levels has been happening since the concept of eminent domain first
reared its ugly head.
But they can now do it for the purpose of turning the property
over to a private developer (mall, hotel, etc), not just for
purposes of using the land for a public project (road, park,
city dump, school, etc).
--
Paul Stevens

"You can lead an idiot to knowledge,
but you can't make him think."
Joseph Crowe
2005-06-24 11:30:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Stevens
Post by Joseph Crowe
Post by Paul Stevens
Today, they stated that the government can take private property
and turn it over to any private developer they feel can generate
more taxes. You no longer own your home, you are only renting
it (by paying taxes) until someone else comes along and promises
to pay more rent (then you get the eviction notice).
This is not new news...this type of action by governments at all
levels has been happening since the concept of eminent domain first
reared its ugly head.
But they can now do it for the purpose of turning the property
over to a private developer (mall, hotel, etc), not just for
purposes of using the land for a public project (road, park,
city dump, school, etc).
This too has been happening for years. Look at the columns by
Vin Suprynowicz at LewRockwell.com or in James Bovard's books
Lost Rights and Freedom in Chains for detailed examples. This
ruling, like the asset forfeiture laws, simply restates what
has existed for years.
Faye
2005-06-24 16:01:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Crowe
Post by Paul Stevens
But they can now do it for the purpose of turning the property
over to a private developer (mall, hotel, etc), not just for
purposes of using the land for a public project (road, park,
city dump, school, etc).
This too has been happening for years. Look at the columns by
Vin Suprynowicz at LewRockwell.com or in James Bovard's books
Lost Rights and Freedom in Chains for detailed examples. This
ruling, like the asset forfeiture laws, simply restates what
has existed for years.
The question is what do we do now to change this legally, constitutionally
if necessary? The citizenry needs to respond in massive numbers, let
lawmakers at all levels know that we want appropriate changes made so that
government does not hold this power over the people. Turn the decision
around, use it as a good thing to awaken the people.

I'm contacting all my elected officials at the lawmaker level and suggest
that others of you do the same.

When Metro tried to take our land for a landfill, I invited a Tennessean
reporter out to look around. In the article that followed, she reported my
sentiment that still holds true: I pointed at a hillside spot and said, "If
they do put the landfill here, I'll be buried right there, because it will
be over my dead body."

Faye
--
"A patriot must be willing to defend his country against his
government." --Edward Abbey
Kent Finnell
2005-06-24 17:04:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Faye
Post by Joseph Crowe
Post by Paul Stevens
But they can now do it for the purpose of turning the property
over to a private developer (mall, hotel, etc), not just for
purposes of using the land for a public project (road, park,
city dump, school, etc).
This too has been happening for years. Look at the columns by
Vin Suprynowicz at LewRockwell.com or in James Bovard's books
Lost Rights and Freedom in Chains for detailed examples. This
ruling, like the asset forfeiture laws, simply restates what
has existed for years.
The question is what do we do now to change this legally, constitutionally
if necessary? The citizenry needs to respond in massive numbers, let
lawmakers at all levels know that we want appropriate changes made so that
government does not hold this power over the people. Turn the decision
around, use it as a good thing to awaken the people.
I'm contacting all my elected officials at the lawmaker level and suggest
that others of you do the same.
When Metro tried to take our land for a landfill, I invited a Tennessean
reporter out to look around. In the article that followed, she reported my
sentiment that still holds true: I pointed at a hillside spot and said, "If
they do put the landfill here, I'll be buried right there, because it will
be over my dead body."
Faye
--
"A patriot must be willing to defend his country against his
government." --Edward Abbey
Tea bag time? I know it's not a tax matter, but how about one bag to each
senator, one to whichever house member, one each to the 5 judges who voted
for the atrocity, and one to the mayor of New London, Connecticut.

Now here's a place where Congress should patch a hole (created by 5
"justices") in the Constitution.

In this day of knee jerk overreaction, it might be a good idea to write on
the envelope "Contents: One Tea Bag". A note of explanation should be
enclosed.
Paul Stevens
2005-06-24 22:09:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kent Finnell
Tea bag time? I know it's not a tax matter,
Actually, it is. The developer's ability to generate more tax
revenue, is the reason for turning the property over to the
developer.
Post by Kent Finnell
but how about one bag to each
senator, one to whichever house member, one each to the 5 judges who voted
for the atrocity, and one to the mayor of New London, Connecticut.
Now here's a place where Congress should patch a hole (created by 5
"justices") in the Constitution.
In this day of knee jerk overreaction, it might be a good idea to write on
the envelope "Contents: One Tea Bag". A note of explanation should be
enclosed.
Perhaps the tea bag should be sealed in a ziplock sandwich bag,
to further deal with concerns about 'what is really in the
envelope'?
--
Paul Stevens

"You can lead an idiot to knowledge,
but you can't make him think."
Joseph Crowe
2005-06-24 17:59:49 UTC
Permalink
Hi Faye, et al,
Post by Faye
Post by Joseph Crowe
Post by Paul Stevens
But they can now do it for the purpose of turning the property
over to a private developer (mall, hotel, etc), not just for
purposes of using the land for a public project (road, park,
city dump, school, etc).
This too has been happening for years. Look at the columns by
Vin Suprynowicz at LewRockwell.com or in James Bovard's books
Lost Rights and Freedom in Chains for detailed examples. This
ruling, like the asset forfeiture laws, simply restates what
has existed for years.
The question is what do we do now to change this legally, constitutionally
if necessary? The citizenry needs to respond in massive numbers, let
lawmakers at all levels know that we want appropriate changes made so that
government does not hold this power over the people. Turn the decision
around, use it as a good thing to awaken the people.
Ya'll have not been paying attention. The time to "change the system
from within" has clearly passed, and these latest absurdities by the
"supreme court" are just the death twitches of a long dead corpse. In
the words of Claire Wolfe, "America is at that awkward stage. It's too
late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."

- Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution
Post by Faye
I'm contacting all my elected officials at the lawmaker level and suggest
that others of you do the same.
That too is pointless. Your elected officials are suspect because
they have already admitted to wanting power over your life by running
for office in a thoroughly corrupt environment.
Post by Faye
When Metro tried to take our land for a landfill, I invited a Tennessean
reporter out to look around. In the article that followed, she reported my
sentiment that still holds true: I pointed at a hillside spot and said, "If
they do put the landfill here, I'll be buried right there, because it will
be over my dead body."
Pay attention to what you wish for.....I'm fairly certain there are
elected cretins willing to take that route.
Post by Faye
Faye
--
Joseph Crowe
Paul Stevens
2005-06-24 22:04:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Crowe
Hi Faye, et al,
Post by Faye
Post by Joseph Crowe
Post by Paul Stevens
But they can now do it for the purpose of turning the property
over to a private developer (mall, hotel, etc), not just for
purposes of using the land for a public project (road, park,
city dump, school, etc).
This too has been happening for years. Look at the columns by
Vin Suprynowicz at LewRockwell.com or in James Bovard's books
Lost Rights and Freedom in Chains for detailed examples. This
ruling, like the asset forfeiture laws, simply restates what
has existed for years.
The question is what do we do now to change this legally,
constitutionally
if necessary? The citizenry needs to respond in massive numbers, let
lawmakers at all levels know that we want appropriate changes made so that
government does not hold this power over the people. Turn the decision
around, use it as a good thing to awaken the people.
Ya'll have not been paying attention. The time to "change the system
from within" has clearly passed, and these latest absurdities by the
"supreme court" are just the death twitches of a long dead corpse. In
the words of Claire Wolfe, "America is at that awkward stage. It's too
late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
- Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution
After enough time had passed for the implications of the medical
marijuana ruling to sink in, I came across some discussion (in
a non-political forum) concerning whether or not America was
still at the awkward stage, or if it was about to move on to the
next stage.

Last night, I read some more heated discussion in a more political
forum (with extremists from both the left and right expressing
discontent with the Supreme Court) on the topic of how close we
are getting to the next stage.
Post by Joseph Crowe
Post by Faye
I'm contacting all my elected officials at the lawmaker level and suggest
that others of you do the same.
That too is pointless. Your elected officials are suspect because
they have already admitted to wanting power over your life by running
for office in a thoroughly corrupt environment.
Post by Faye
When Metro tried to take our land for a landfill, I invited a Tennessean
reporter out to look around. In the article that followed, she reported my
sentiment that still holds true: I pointed at a hillside spot and said, "If
they do put the landfill here, I'll be buried right there, because it will
be over my dead body."
Pay attention to what you wish for.....I'm fairly certain there are
elected cretins willing to take that route.
Quite a few people have been concerned, for many years, about the
trend toward increased use of SWAT equipment and tactics in
situations that had previously been handled by less confrontational
means.
--
Paul Stevens

"You can lead an idiot to knowledge,
but you can't make him think."
Faye
2005-06-24 22:46:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Crowe
That too is pointless. Your elected officials are suspect because
they have already admitted to wanting power over your life by running
for office in a thoroughly corrupt environment.
I share that opinion of those who put themselves in a position of authority
over others. I've had to fight on the frontlines of too many battles
through the years to *keep the Romans off Masada.* I've won some and I've
lost some, but it is not within my character to quit trying. Like Margaret
Mead said, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people
can change the world. Indeed it is the only thing that ever has."

Faye
answering the bell for another round
Faye
2005-06-22 16:54:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Stevens
"You can lead an idiot to knowledge,
but you can't make him think."
From experience, I can assure you, Paul, that this is one of those
situations. Eschew and snicker.

btw, Does your bike have a name, like maybe, Spike the Bike? (Sounds like a
dragon name? : ) So I can occasionally ask, how's [Spike]? : )

Also OT, the #%@&(+! deer ate oodles of my bean plants last night in two
separate gardens despite *considerable* efforts to deter them. I'm going
today to get some of that liquid fencing stuff, they carry it at the co-op
now, that John Dey recommended. I'm sure all the deer hunters I have run
off would laugh their be-hinds off at my plight. I'll do it for them!
Better to laugh than cry! ; )

Faye
high on laughter endorphins
Paul Stevens
2005-06-23 03:19:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Faye
btw, Does your bike have a name, like maybe, Spike the Bike? (Sounds like a
dragon name? : ) So I can occasionally ask, how's [Spike]? : )
No name (not yet, anyway).

Progress slowed considerably, a while back. I hit my annual
week of dealing with something blooming (kinda hard to weld,
while you're sneezing inside the welding helmet), then it got
hot (hot + welding = an unhappy, sweaty welder). I have managed
to get a little of the welding done on the top half of the tank,
but I keep forgetting to update the website.
--
Paul Stevens

"You can lead an idiot to knowledge,
but you can't make him think."
fiddler_crabby
2005-06-27 11:57:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Faye
separate gardens despite *considerable* efforts to deter them. I'm going
today to get some of that liquid fencing stuff, they carry it at the co-op
now, that John Dey recommended. I'm sure all the deer hunters I have run
off would laugh their be-hinds off at my plight. I'll do it for them!
Better to laugh than cry! ; )
I've sprinkled a little dried blood around plants to keep rabbits out --
heard it works for deer, too.

--fc
Kent Finnell
2005-06-27 13:14:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by fiddler_crabby
Post by Faye
separate gardens despite *considerable* efforts to deter them. I'm going
today to get some of that liquid fencing stuff, they carry it at the co-op
now, that John Dey recommended. I'm sure all the deer hunters I have run
off would laugh their be-hinds off at my plight. I'll do it for them!
Better to laugh than cry! ; )
I've sprinkled a little dried blood around plants to keep rabbits out --
heard it works for deer, too.
--fc
As Turner Hutchison said many years ago, "Deer, 110 pound rats with antlers
and sharp hooves."

Deer, whitetail of course, range from pretty to downright beautiful, But
they can be dangerous nuisances. Whitetail deer are NOT native to Tennessee
and are damn near as prolific as rabbits. Mule deer are almost as ugly as
their equine namesakes. "Son, have you ever kissed a slobbering, green
lipped mule?" (Jerry Clower)
--
Kent Finnell
From the Music City USA
Faye
2005-06-27 14:28:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by fiddler_crabby
I've sprinkled a little dried blood around plants to keep rabbits out --
heard it works for deer, too.
I have scent hounds, so having blood about wouldn't be a good idea. I have
applied the Liquid Fence and, so far, it has actually worked--the deer
haven't eaten anything else. (knock on wood) One of my female cats takes
her job of keeping rabbits out of the garden quite seriously.

Faye
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...