DS Alert (10-15)
Antonio E. Gonzalez
Duckhead conveninently slips!
Gotta love it when that two week window passes! Of course, it
could just be bad research; either way . . .:
<http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/fun/mallard.asp?date=20081015>
. . . and then *this* happens!:
<http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Acorn_pushes_back_hugs_McCain.html>
--
- ReFlex76
- "Let's beat the terrorists with our most powerful weapon . . . hot girl-on-girl action!"
- "The difference between young and old is the difference between looking forward to your next birthday, and dreading it!"
- Jesus Christ - The original hippie!
<http://reflex76.blogspot.com/>
<http://www.blogger.com/profile/07245047157197572936>
Katana > Chain Saw > Baseball Bat > Hammer
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
> Since some people forgot what a DS Alert is supposed to be, the
> Duckhead conveninently slips!
>
> Gotta love it when that two week window passes! Of course, it
> could just be bad research; either way . . .:
>
> <http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/fun/mallard.asp?date=20081015>
>
> . . . and then *this* happens!:
>
>
> <http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Acorn_pushes_back_hugs_McCain.html>
Um ... what exactly is your point? ACORN once jumped in to support
one of McCain's hare-brained ideas that was embraced by the far left,
so therefore he ... well, that's where you lose me.
Here's the Stanley Kurtz article Tinsley references. I haven't read
much of it yet, and have no idea how much is or isn't factual, but on
the surface it certainly does sound like something that ought to get
talked about:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09292008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/os_dangerous_pals_131216.htm
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone objects to any statement I make, I am
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / bal...@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it.-T. Lehrer
***~~~~----------------------------------------------------------------------
LNER...@juno.com
organizations" decides to host an event at which politicians may
speak.
They send an invite to Joe Politician. There's no evidence that this
is, for want of a better comparison, a KKK rally, or even a Nuke a Gay
Whale for Christ rally. Just a community rally/event, and they want
Joe to talk.
If Joe turns it down, they can say "Joe doesn't care about you people/
his constituents!" What can he do, other than say his schedule is
full (and not get caught at the AIG spa outing at the same time)?
It's fundamentally a trap, no matter how you look at it. Democratic
partisans would trash McCain if he only spoke to selectively-packed,
screened crowds (as they do when Bush 43 does so), and here they're
trying to mock him for outreach to his theoretical opposition.
So tell me: is there a way you would find it in yourself to commend
McCain?
LNER...@juno.com
Andrew Ryan Chang
>And furthermore, let's suppose some "association of community
>organizations" decides to host an event at which politicians may
>speak.
>
>They send an invite to Joe Politician. There's no evidence that this
>is, for want of a better comparison, a KKK rally, or even a Nuke a Gay
>Whale for Christ rally. Just a community rally/event, and they want
>Joe to talk.
>
>If Joe turns it down, they can say "Joe doesn't care about you people/
>his constituents!"
Didn't stop Bush from snubbing the NAACP consecutive years.
--
"Soft drinks have a place in a well-balanced diet,"
-- Sean McBride, communications director for the National Soft Drink
Association. (Mother Jones article, 2001.)
LNER...@juno.com
> >If Joe turns it down, they can say "Joe doesn't care about you people/
> >his constituents!"
>
> Didn't stop Bush from snubbing the NAACP consecutive years.
>
would have said that about Bush 43 even if he had issued "reparations
for slavery".
But more to my point: McCain did what Bush 43 didn't (reached out to
his opponents). Other opponents use that to (supposedly) tarnish him.
I repeat: Propose a workable alternative.
George W Harris
INVALID...@example.com.invalid (J.D. Baldwin) wrote:
>Here's the Stanley Kurtz article Tinsley references. I haven't read
>much of it yet, and have no idea how much is or isn't factual, but on
>the surface it certainly does sound like something that ought to get
>talked about:
He says:
"THE seeds of today's financial meltdown lie in the Community
Reinvestment Act"
which is false. Of the twenty institutions most
responsible for subprime loans, only one is subject to
the CRA. No, the seeds of the financial meltdown were
the repeal of Glass-Steagal in 1999 and the deregulation
of default credit swaps in 2000, the blame for both of
which can be shared equally by the Republican Congress
(primarily Phil Gramm, who was the primary sponsor of
both) and President Clinton.
--
Doesn't the fact that there are *exactly* 50 states seem a little suspicious?
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
Antonio E. Gonzalez
*Not* using ACORN as part of his campaign - considering his own
involvement - would have been a start . . .
Mike Marshall
>Didn't stop Bush from snubbing the NAACP consecutive years.
Why would Bush want to address a Hate Group?
-Mike
Andrew Ryan Chang
Ridiculously insane delusions aside, you do realize he eventually
accepted an invitation, right?
--
Lisa: Mom, romance is dead. It was acquired in a hostile takeover by
Hallmark and Disney, homogenized, and sold off piece by piece.
-- No cynicism here, "Another Simpsons Clip Show"
Mike Marshall
> Ridiculously insane delusions aside, you do realize he eventually
>accepted an invitation, right?
Hopelessly ignorant assertion aside, you do realize the NAACP is a Hate
Group, right?
-Mike
Antonio E. Gonzalez
<AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
> Since some people forgot what a DS Alert is supposed to be, the
>Duckhead conveninently slips!
>
> Gotta love it when that two week window passes! Of course, it
>could just be bad research; either way . . .:
>
> <http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/fun/mallard.asp?date=20081015>
>
> . . . and then *this* happens!:
>
>
><http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Acorn_pushes_back_hugs_McCain.html>
Another reason Obama's different from too many other Democrats:
his campaign doesn't just lie down and take it, time to go on the
offensive!:
<http://www.politico.com/static/PPM106_obama_doj_letter.html>
Antonio E. Gonzalez
Chang) wrote:
>Mike Marshall <hub...@clemson.edu> wrote:
>>arc...@sfu.ca (Andrew Ryan Chang) writes:
>>>Didn't stop Bush from snubbing the NAACP consecutive years.
>>
>>Why would Bush want to address a Hate Group?
>
> Ridiculously insane delusions aside, you do realize he eventually
>accepted an invitation, right?
Well, changing their name to NAAAA would be incredibly impractical;
I mean, that's the only explanation I have for calling such a
long-respected organization a "Hate Group" . . .
Dann
news:9g8kf458irijs0rmp...@4ax.com.
> On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 09:19:41 -0700, Antonio E. Gonzalez
> <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Since some people forgot what a DS Alert is supposed to be, the
>>Duckhead conveninently slips!
>>
>> Gotta love it when that two week window passes! Of course, it
>>could just be bad research; either way . . .:
>>
>> <http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/fun/mallard.asp?date=20081015>
>>
>> . . . and then *this* happens!:
>>
>>
>><http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Acorn_pushes_back_hugs_McC
>>ain.html>
>
> Another reason Obama's different from too many other Democrats:
> his campaign doesn't just lie down and take it, time to go on the
> offensive!:
>
> <http://www.politico.com/static/PPM106_obama_doj_letter.html>
>
>
I heard David Iglesias on Terry Gross' 'Fresh Air' program. He admitted
that there stories regarding fraudulent voter registration fraud were
rampant in New Mexico at the time when he was directed to look into
voting fraud related issues.
He further suggested that he wasn't typically interested in such cases as
they didn't usually result in people spending years in prison.
IMO swamping the system with fraudulent registrations results in a system
that is unable to determine who is an eligible voter in a timely manner.
As a result, ineligible voters will not be prevented from voting and thus
any legitimate votes are discounted in value.
Add to that the several instances of proven and suspected voter fraud
[St. Louis - that's ACORN folks! - and Milwaukee].
Quite frankly, if the GOP were doing the same thing, you'd be calling for
a firing squad and worry about having a trial sometime after their bodies
were cold.
Voter fraud is a serious issue and it needs to be stopped now while it is
still managable/stoppable.
--
Regards,
Dann
blogging at http://web.newsguy.com/dainbramage/blog.htm
Freedom works; each and every time it is tried.
Andrew Ryan Chang
I would love to see you justify this.
--
"The invasion of Iraq failed to meet the test for a humanitarian
intervention." - Ken Roth, Human Rights Watch
[http://hrw.org/wr2k4/3.htm]
Andrew Ryan Chang
>I heard David Iglesias on Terry Gross' 'Fresh Air' program. He admitted
>that there stories regarding fraudulent voter registration fraud were
>rampant in New Mexico at the time when he was directed to look into
>voting fraud related issues.
>
>He further suggested that he wasn't typically interested in such cases as
>they didn't usually result in people spending years in prison.
I listened to it and can hardly believe the parts you left out.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95489844
Indeed, he said they were misdemeanors; in other words, the law
does not take these things as seriously as felonies in the criminal code.
He also said he _did_ set up a voter fraud task force and looked
into it _because_ of these stories... (He did so because he wanted to
avoid the appearance of political bias that would have come about in a
voter fraud case if his own office did an investigation without the input
of others.) You _also_ forgot to mention that after two years, he found
no cases whatsoever that he felt he could win a prosecution. As with
pretty much all voter fraud rumors -- see also David Becker* -- nothing
came of it because there was nothing actually there.
I am honestly surprised -- I suppose I shouldn't be -- at your
incredible "summary" of the interview.
>IMO swamping the system with fraudulent registrations results in a system
>that is unable to determine who is an eligible voter in a timely manner.
>As a result, ineligible voters will not be prevented from voting and thus
>any legitimate votes are discounted in value.
So what's "swamping"? Even the much-reviled (among Republican
"voter fraud" scamsters) ACORN turns in less than 1% of registrations that
are fraudulent...
* David Becker:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/print?id=6049529
] "There's no evidence that any of these invalid registrations lead to any
] invalid votes," said David Becker, project director of the "Make Voting
] Work" initiative for the Pew Charitable Trusts.
]
] Becker should know: he was a lawyer for the Bush administration until
] 2005, in the Justice Department's voting rights section, which was part
] of the administration's aggressive anti-vote-fraud effort.
]
] "The Justice Department really made prosecution of voter fraud of this
] sort a big priority in the first half of this decade, and they really
] didn't come up with anything," he said.
Dann
news:gdddpk$poe$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca.
> Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>I heard David Iglesias on Terry Gross' 'Fresh Air' program. He
>>admitted that there stories regarding fraudulent voter registration
>>fraud were rampant in New Mexico at the time when he was directed to
>>look into voting fraud related issues.
>>
>>He further suggested that he wasn't typically interested in such cases
>>as they didn't usually result in people spending years in prison.
>
> I listened to it and can hardly believe the parts you left out.
>
> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95489844
>
> Indeed, he said they were misdemeanors; in other words, the law
> does not take these things as seriously as felonies in the criminal
> code.
>
> He also said he _did_ set up a voter fraud task force and looked
> into it _because_ of these stories... (He did so because he wanted to
> avoid the appearance of political bias that would have come about in a
> voter fraud case if his own office did an investigation without the
> input of others.) You _also_ forgot to mention that after two years,
> he found no cases whatsoever that he felt he could win a prosecution.
> As with pretty much all voter fraud rumors -- see also David Becker*
> -- nothing came of it because there was nothing actually there.
>
> I am honestly surprised -- I suppose I shouldn't be -- at your
> incredible "summary" of the interview.
It wasn't meant to be an all inclusive summary. It was a list of what I
considered to be the most salient points.
Your synopsis wasn't complete either as you omitted the usual tin foil
hat allegations of Rovian mind control motivating the Justice
Department's emphasis on voter fraud.
He admitted that NM had problems. He indicated that he had a preference
for prosecuting cases that resulted in major prison time. He even
admitted that he did have one case he could have taken to trial.
IMO, he had a preference for other kinds of cases that precluded his best
efforts being focused on voter fraud issues. IMO, he failed to find
cases worthy of prosecution because he was using his discretion in
deciding which cases to prosecute.
>
>>IMO swamping the system with fraudulent registrations results in a
>>system that is unable to determine who is an eligible voter in a
>>timely manner. As a result, ineligible voters will not be prevented
>>from voting and thus any legitimate votes are discounted in value.
>
> So what's "swamping"? Even the much-reviled (among Republican
> "voter fraud" scamsters) ACORN turns in less than 1% of registrations
> that are fraudulent...
It doesn't take many votes to win a tight election.
Ohio may already have gone to Mr. Obama as a result of their new same day
registration/vote program. Technically, those voters were registering
and casting an absentee ballot on the same day.
Video of those voters suggested to me that some were provided with
inducements to go and vote and in at least one case the voter was
instructed to vote for Mr. Obama. I've got it somewhere in my email if
you [or anyone else] is interested.
And then locally, we have this story of a former ACORN employee being
charged with 6 counts of felony forgery on voter registration forms.
<http://www.mlive.com/jackson/stories/index.ssf?/base/news-
26/122407951912311.xml&coll=3>
Mike Marshall
> Well, changing their name to NAAAA would be incredibly impractical;
>I mean, that's the only explanation I have for calling such a
>long-respected organization a "Hate Group" . . .
Are we talking about the same group of money-grubbing race-baiters?
-Mike
Mike Marshall
> I would love to see you justify this.
You're not the target of their "odious blight" resolution. I have nothing
to justify to you.
-Mike
Jym Dyer
>> a long-respected organization a "Hate Group" . . .
> Are we talking about the same group of money-grubbing
> race-baiters?
=v= Clearly not. He's talking about a group that exists in
reality. You're talking about a white supremacist's chimera
that exists in the fevered imaginations of the right-wing
media and those stupid enough to believe them.
<_Jym_>
Jym Dyer
> I have nothing to justify to you.
=v= A web search of this phrase reveals that Mike Marshall
is on again about the Confederate Battle Flag:
=v= The symbol in question was not in fact some sort of "flag
of the Confederacy" nor even a "flag of the South". It was a
particular battle flag that was adopted long after the Civil
War by white supremacist to rally against segregation.
<_Jym_>
Antonio E. Gonzalez
A coupla great cartoons on that . . .:
<http://www.idrewthis.org/d/20041028.html>
<http://www.miltpriggee.com/index.php?pid=1&sid=13&img=3329>
. . . and hey, there are *plenty* of things you can still do with
those flags! Lining for litter boxes, lining for bird cages,
emergency toilet paper, kindling for fireplaces/grills . . . I'm sure
you could come up with more . . .
Pat O'Neill
> And then locally, we have this story of a former ACORN employee being
> charged with 6 counts of felony forgery on voter registration forms.
>
> <http://www.mlive.com/jackson/stories/index.ssf?/base/news-
> 26/122407951912311.xml&coll=3>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Dann
>
Let me point out that the forging of registration forms is not the
same as election fraud. Under the current law, anyone attempting to
vote as being one of those fraudulent registrants will be required to
show valid photo ID, including proof of residency. ACORN regularly
flagged suspicious registrations for the election officials to
investigate. If ACORN were trying to commit such fraud why would they
make it easy to prove it?
aemeijers
least one Jefferson Davis highway that I have personal knowledge of, in
Virginia, as well as a parish (county) in Louisiana. Fancy granite
monuments put up by the Daughters of the Confederacy are as common down
south, as DAR markers are in the northeast.
--
aem sends...
Mike Marshall
>Milt Priggee never never spent any time down south, huh? There is at
>least one Jefferson Davis highway that I have personal knowledge of, in
>Virginia, as well as a parish (county) in Louisiana. Fancy granite
>monuments put up by the Daughters of the Confederacy are as common down
>south, as DAR markers are in the northeast.
I bet ->JyM<- and Gonzalez could really whoop up on some of them
little gray haired old UDC ladies...
-Mike "if they work together..."
Mike Marshall
No, ->JyM<-, I'm not talking about your bathrobe.
If anyone here is his friend, please explain to him how
NAACP != black.
-Mike
Mike Marshall
... typically ignorant stuff ...
> <_Jym_>
Do you see your Daddy in one of these bathrobes, ->JyM<-?
http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~hubcap/klanFlag.jpg
-Mike
racs...@gmail.com
>
> I heard David Iglesias on Terry Gross' 'Fresh Air' program. He admitted
> that there stories regarding fraudulent voter registration fraud were
> rampant in New Mexico at the time when he was directed to look into
> voting fraud related issues.
>
> He further suggested that he wasn't typically interested in such cases as
> they didn't usually result in people spending years in prison.
>
> IMO swamping the system with fraudulent registrations results in a system
> that is unable to determine who is an eligible voter in a timely manner.
> As a result, ineligible voters will not be prevented from voting and thus
> any legitimate votes are discounted in value.
>
I think, rather than IMO, the acronym you wanted was
"IANAFPWCEAWATTRDACLAWAAFHKOCLAP" (I am not a federal prosecutor with
considerable experience and with access to the relevent data and case
law as well as a first-hand knowledge of case load and priorities."
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
LNER...@juno.com
>
> Let me point out that the forging of registration forms is not the
> same as election fraud. Under the current law, anyone attempting to
> vote as being one of those fraudulent registrants will be required to
> show valid photo ID, including proof of residency. ACORN regularly
> flagged suspicious registrations for the election officials to
> investigate. If ACORN were trying to commit such fraud why would they
> make it easy to prove it?
*In some states--including the one in which I am working as an
election judge this November--election officials are EXPLICITLY BARRED
from asking for any form of ID.
Make of that what you will.
Mike Beede
Mike Marshall <hub...@clemson.edu> wrote:
Do you seriously mean to say you're mad about the Confederate
flag? Isn't it enough to whip out that "war of Northern
aggression" bilge from time to time? Balls. You're not
getting to have slavery back, and that's final.
Mike Beede
Mike Beede
aemeijers <aeme...@att.net> wrote:
> > <http://www.miltpriggee.com/index.php?pid=1&sid=13&img=3329>
> >
> > . . . and hey, there are *plenty* of things you can still do with
> > those flags! Lining for litter boxes, lining for bird cages,
> > emergency toilet paper, kindling for fireplaces/grills . . . I'm sure
> > you could come up with more . . .
> >
> >
> >
> Milt Priggee never never spent any time down south, huh? There is at
> least one Jefferson Davis highway that I have personal knowledge of, in
> Virginia, as well as a parish (county) in Louisiana.
I think he was contrasting that with the other fictional ones.
There's probably a Jefferson Davis road, highway, or something in
most Southern cities.
Mike Beede
aemeijers
A couple of months ago, Leonard Pitts Jr., in his excellent newspaper
column, reviewed a book that described how de facto slavery existed well
into the 20th century. Southern Law Enforcement would arrest transient
black males on trumped-up charges, the local judge would sentence them
to 90 days or so on the county farm, and the farm manager would then
lease the inmates out as work gangs to local plantation owners. Since
said transients usually had little education, and never had money for a
lawyer, there wasn't much they could do about it. Like somebody else
used in this group a couple hours ago, the old Carson line of 'I did not
know that' comes to mind.
Pitts write a great column. I don't always agree with him, but he sure
knows how to string words together, and he always makes me think, often
out of my comfort zone.
--
aem sends...
Dann
@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.
> Pitts write a great column. I don't always agree with him, but he sure
> knows how to string words together, and he always makes me think, often
> out of my comfort zone.
Amen. I never know which column gets me going the most; the ones where his
so very wrong or the ones where he is so very right.
Pat O'Neill
Then their state law is in violation of current federal law, which
specifically says that people voting for the first time in a federal
election must show ID. Others need not.
LNER...@juno.com
>
> Then their state law is in violation of current federal law, which
> specifically says that people voting for the first time in a federal
> election must show ID. Others need not.
Please get back to me with specific cites. I'll contrast with my
state's election judge's manual and see what's up.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
That's the problem with nostalgia, it's so selective!:
<http://schooloffish.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/a_slavery_maryland_0327.jpg>
--
- ReFlex 76
aemeijers
> Mike Marshall makes an _ad_hominem_ provocation:
>
>> Do you see your Daddy in one of these bathrobes, ->JyM<-?
>> http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~hubcap/klanFlag.jpg
>
> (that the Battle Flag of Virginia is a racist symbol), but
> it is actually possible that one of my grandfathers was
> part of that cohort, if family rumors are to be believed.
> My father is of course too young to have been a Klansman
> in the 1920s, but certainly racist in his own right -- to
> the point that he refuses to recognize some of his own
> grandchildren.
> <_Jym_>
>
My sympathies on that- he is just depriving himself of his grandbabies
for no good reason. A good buddy of mine at work ended up with a
biracial grandson when one of his daughters got careless. He doesn't
care, he is so happy to have a young boy to pal around with after having
nothing but daughters. But when he brought the grandson to the office
picnic, he sure got some funny looks from some of the more traditional
coworkers. Screw them, my buddy said- he is a doting Grandpa and having
a blast. And when the little guy tuckers Grandpa out, he can just hand
him back to his daughter.
--
aem sends...
Pat O'Neill
Here's the relevant section of the Help America Vote Act. It's in
Title III of the act:
(b) Requirements for Voters Who Register by Mail.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding section 6(c) of the
National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C.
1973gg-4(c))
and subject to paragraph (3), a State shall, in a uniform and
nondiscriminatory manner, require an individual to meet the
requirements of paragraph (2) if--
(A) the individual registered to vote in a
jurisdiction by mail; and
(B)(i) the individual has not previously voted in
an
election for Federal office in the State; or
(ii) the individual has not previously voted in
such
an election in the jurisdiction and the jurisdiction
is
located in a State that does not have a computerized
list that complies with the requirements of
subsection
(a).
(2) Requirements.--
(A) In general.--An individual meets the
requirements of this paragraph if the individual--
(i) in the case of an individual who votes
in
person--
(I) presents to the appropriate
State or local election official a
current and valid photo
identification;
or
(II) presents to the appropriate
State or local election official a
copy
of a current utility bill, bank
statement, government check,
paycheck,
or other government document that
shows
the name and address of the voter; or
(ii) in the case of an individual who votes
by
mail, submits with the ballot--
(I) a copy of a current and valid
photo identification; or
(II) a copy of a current utility
bill, bank statement, government
check,
paycheck, or other government
document
that shows the name and address of
the
voter.
The full text of the Act can be found here: http://www.fec.gov/hava/law_ext.txt
(It's a PDF file).
As I read the above--and as I have read others describe it--any person
who is newly registered in a jurisdiction and did not register in
person at the office of whatever official maintains voting records
(and that's practically anybody, really) must present ID as described
to prove he is the person who registered...because he did not present
such ID to the official when registering.
Read it and tell me if I (and all the others who have commented on
this re: ACORN) are wrong.
Andrew Ryan Chang
>> incredible "summary" of the interview.
>
>It wasn't meant to be an all inclusive summary. It was a list of what I
>considered to be the most salient points.
>IMO, he had a preference for other kinds of cases that precluded his best
>efforts being focused on voter fraud issues. IMO, he failed to find
>cases worthy of prosecution because he was using his discretion in
>deciding which cases to prosecute.
IMO, his explanation was that _the law did not make view those
transgressions as seriously as the crimes labelled felonies_, since he
said most of the alleged crimes were misdemeanors. As for his discretion,
he explicitly employed a task force, so I would not be so quick to blame
"couldn't find anything because he didn't want to find it"...
But if you want to submerge yourself in fantasies about what he
said and what he meant, please don't let me stop you.
--
"If the Democratic policies had been pursued over the last two or three
years, [...] we would not have had the kind of job growth that we've had."
-- Dick Cheney, Mar 2, 2004. (Note that job growth in the Bush
administration to that point had been *negative*.)
Mike Beede
aemeijers <aeme...@att.net> wrote:
> A couple of months ago, Leonard Pitts Jr., in his excellent newspaper
> column, reviewed a book that described how de facto slavery existed well
> into the 20th century. Southern Law Enforcement would arrest transient
> black males on trumped-up charges, the local judge would sentence them
> to 90 days or so on the county farm, and the farm manager would then
> lease the inmates out as work gangs to local plantation owners. Since
> said transients usually had little education, and never had money for a
> lawyer, there wasn't much they could do about it. Like somebody else
> used in this group a couple hours ago, the old Carson line of 'I did not
> know that' comes to mind.
I read a review of the same book in the New York Times Review
of Books. I'm going to have to get an actual copy. Wonder
if I can get my kids to read it? Looking at the distasteful
parts of our history is a good antidote for repeating them.
Mike Beede
Invid Fan
<be...@visi.com> wrote:
I usually find the casual racism in older books a good wake up call, as
it's just assumed the reader agrees.
--
Chris Mack *quote under construction*
'Invid Fan'
Mike Beede
Jym Dyer <j...@econet.org> wrote:
> Mike Marshall makes an _ad_hominem_ provocation:
>
> > Do you see your Daddy in one of these bathrobes, ->JyM<-?
> > http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~hubcap/klanFlag.jpg
I didn't actually understand this one. I mean, I speak
English, and American English at that, but I just don't
see how this was supposed to be taken as anything
meaningful. I'd understand it as support for a claim
that the Klan used American flags (though it seems like
thin evidence that they didn't use Confederate ones too,
since all the locations identified weren't part of the
Confederacy and presumably they wouldn't want to draw
attention to their Southern roots), but what were we supposed
to take the "Daddy" thing to mean?
Usually I at least understand the insults . . . .
Mike Beede
Sherwood Harrington
Wow.
Sometimes, like right now, reality smacks me upside the head and reminds
me that there aren't very many other places on this continent where an
extended family like mine would be considered normal. Thanks, Mike, Jym,
and aem for helping that reminder along this time.
--
Sherwood Harrington
Boulder Creek, California
George W Harris
Same over here. Both of my grandmothers were
full-fledged white Christian racists (born in 1905, one in
Illinois, the other in North Carolina), but my parents dote
on their grandchildren, who are all either black or Jewish.
--
Doesn't the fact that there are *exactly* 50 states seem a little suspicious?
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
George W Harris
wrote:
Faulkner is excellent for this, as the casual
racism is more by the characters than overtly by the
author in most cases, and he's a great writer.
James Nicoll
Long
from 1910's "The Unparalleled Invasion" (Jack London)
"On May 1st, 1976, had the reader been in the imperial city
of Peking, with its population of 11 millions, he would have
witnessed a curious sight... High up in the blue he would
have beheld a tiny dot of black, which he would have identified
as an aeroplane. From this aeroplane, as it curved its flight
back and forth over the city, fell missiles -- strange, harmless-
looking missiles, tubes of fragile glass that shattered
into thousands of fragments on the streets and housetops."
"Had there been but one plague, China might have coped with it.
But from a score of plagues, no creature was immune. The man
who escaped smallpox went down before scarlet fever; the man who
was immune to yellow fever was carried away by cholera; and if
he were immune to that too, the Black Death, which was the
bubonic plague, swept him away. For it was these bacteria, and
germs, and microbes, and bacilli, cultured in the laboratories
of the West, that had come down upon China in the rain of glass."
"And so began the great task, the sanitation of China. Five years
and hundreds of millions of treasure were consumed, and then the
world moved in... heterogenously, according to the democratic
American program. It was a vast and happy intermingling of
nationalities that settled down in China in 1982 and the years
that followed -- a tremendous and successful experiment in cross-
fertilization. We know today the splendid mechanical, intellectual,
and artistic output that followed."
Now, while it became somewhat unpopular to target specific
nationalities as surplus to needs, the idea that various subgroups
should be discouraged from breeding lest one end up in a Marching
Morons situation lingered on;
From Blish and Knight's A TORRENT OF FACES (1967):
"[...] the leaching out of the gene-pool, which took place while the
population was reaching its current peak, has left us with a high majority
of pure thump-heads."
And more recently, from 2003's THE GOLDEN TRANSCENDENCE by
John C. Wright:
"One benevolent outcome of an otherwise dark and tyrannous world-empire
period was the reduction, through eugenics and genetic engineering, of
strains of the human bloodlines prone to substandard intelligence and
mental disease."
And I've got another good one but the book isn't out yet.
A few years ago I got sent something where the eugenics
guy was the villain. His argument at one point was that we had
to Act Now or Downs Syndrome people would outbreed us all. The hero
focused on issues like "My brother has Downs and he is not the
sort of parasitic monster you seem to think he is," but he could
have pointed out that one common side-effect of Downs Syndrome
is reduced fertility, which you'd think Mr. Eugenics would know.
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
aemeijers
I didn't know Jack London wrote any sci-fi. Wonder why H.G.Wells works
from that era are so well known, but London is better remembered for his
more conventional adventures.
Learn something every day on this here desktop TV thing.....
--
aem sends...
James Nicoll
aemeijers <aeme...@att.net> wrote:
>
>I didn't know Jack London wrote any sci-fi. Wonder why H.G.Wells works
>from that era are so well known, but London is better remembered for his
>more conventional adventures.
>
>Learn something every day on this here desktop TV thing.....
See also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Iron_Heel
Invid Fan
aemeijers <aeme...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > from 1910's "The Unparalleled Invasion" (Jack London)
> >
> > "On May 1st, 1976, had the reader been in the imperial city
> > of Peking, with its population of 11 millions, he would have
> > witnessed a curious sight... High up in the blue he would
> > have beheld a tiny dot of black, which he would have identified
> > as an aeroplane. From this aeroplane, as it curved its flight
> > back and forth over the city, fell missiles -- strange, harmless-
> > looking missiles, tubes of fragile glass that shattered
> > into thousands of fragments on the streets and housetops."
>
> I didn't know Jack London wrote any sci-fi. Wonder why H.G.Wells works
> from that era are so well known, but London is better remembered for his
> more conventional adventures.
>
Possibly because London wrote things like the above :) It's not unusual
for only a small handful of an authors books to be remembered or stay
in print as "classics". How many of Mark Twain's many novels are still
around in book stores? I have a 2001 printing of Jules Verne's
"Invasion of the Sea" which claims to be the first English translation
(Europeans use a canal to create an inland sea in the Sahara, and the
local Islamic people get pissed).
Mike Marshall
>I didn't actually understand this one. I mean, I speak
>English, and American English at that, but I just don't
>see how this was supposed to be taken as anything
>meaningful. I'd understand it as support for a claim
>that the Klan used American flags (though it seems like
>thin evidence that they didn't use Confederate ones too,
>since all the locations identified weren't part of the
>Confederacy and presumably they wouldn't want to draw
>attention to their Southern roots), but what were we supposed
>to take the "Daddy" thing to mean?
Your problem is that you're not brainwashed. If you were, you'd understand
that only I, a proud Southerner and constant defender of the Confederate
Soldier's good name, could possibly be a white-supremacist
Klan lover, and in fact, almost certainly *must* be one. That's
where the "your daddy" part comes from - the NAACP has taught their
children, and ->JyM<- and gonzalas and..., that the Confederate
Soldier's battle flag is evil as proved by a picture of a Klansman
with it. They (the NAACP, probably not ->JyM<- or gonzalas) know
that more Klansmen have used the United States flag than the
Confederate flag, but they have no chance of duping even the witless among
us into joining a lucrative hate crusade against the United States Flag,
so they focus on what they've got.
Hope that helps...
-Mike
James Nicoll
Invid Fan <in...@loclanet.com> wrote:
>In article <YhTKk.81445$Mh5....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>aemeijers <aeme...@att.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> >
>> > from 1910's "The Unparalleled Invasion" (Jack London)
>> >
>> > "On May 1st, 1976, had the reader been in the imperial city
>> > of Peking, with its population of 11 millions, he would have
>> > witnessed a curious sight... High up in the blue he would
>> > have beheld a tiny dot of black, which he would have identified
>> > as an aeroplane. From this aeroplane, as it curved its flight
>> > back and forth over the city, fell missiles -- strange, harmless-
>> > looking missiles, tubes of fragile glass that shattered
>> > into thousands of fragments on the streets and housetops."
>>
>> I didn't know Jack London wrote any sci-fi. Wonder why H.G.Wells works
>> from that era are so well known, but London is better remembered for his
>> more conventional adventures.
>>
>Possibly because London wrote things like the above :)
But it's not out of keeping with other perfectly respectable
material written at about the same time (Yes, I have an HG Wells quotation
waiting in the wings).
>It's not unusual
>for only a small handful of an authors books to be remembered or stay
>in print as "classics". How many of Mark Twain's many novels are still
>around in book stores? I have a 2001 printing of Jules Verne's
>"Invasion of the Sea" which claims to be the first English translation
>(Europeans use a canal to create an inland sea in the Sahara, and the
>local Islamic people get pissed).
Most books are gone and forgotten within a year of their
publication so if an author has anything in print a century after
their death, that's a credit to the author in question. Even getting
something into Project Gutenberg counts, because someone had to care
enough to put it there.
One of my minor amusments is flipping through my older MMPKs
to see if I can recognize the names of the best-sellers circa 1972...
Mark Jackson
> In article <YhTKk.81445$Mh5....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> aemeijers <aeme...@att.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>> from 1910's "The Unparalleled Invasion" (Jack London)
>>>
>>> "On May 1st, 1976, had the reader been in the imperial city
>>> of Peking, with its population of 11 millions, he would have
>>> witnessed a curious sight... High up in the blue he would
>>> have beheld a tiny dot of black, which he would have identified
>>> as an aeroplane. From this aeroplane, as it curved its flight
>>> back and forth over the city, fell missiles -- strange, harmless-
>>> looking missiles, tubes of fragile glass that shattered
>>> into thousands of fragments on the streets and housetops."
>> I didn't know Jack London wrote any sci-fi. Wonder why H.G.Wells works
>> from that era are so well known, but London is better remembered for his
>> more conventional adventures.
>>
> Possibly because London wrote things like the above :)
Does /It Can't Happen Here/ (Sinclair Lewis) count as soft science
fiction? No science I can recall, but it does portray a distopian
future for the US. And (also IIRC) the anti-Mexican stuff is all on the
side of the ruling fascists, who use it to whip up a patriotic frenzy in
favor of war with Mexico.
--
Mark Jackson - http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~mjackson
I've always believed that America's government was a
unique political system - one designed by geniuses so
that it could be run by idiots. I was wrong.
- Thomas Friedman
Mike Beede
aemeijers <aeme...@att.net> wrote:
> I didn't know Jack London wrote any sci-fi. Wonder why H.G.Wells works
> from that era are so well known, but London is better remembered for his
> more conventional adventures.
If you can find a copy, you should read "With the Night Mail" by
Rudyard Kipling, another contemporary we don't think of as a
science fiction ("sci fi"--arrgh) writer. It's at Gutenberg:
<http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/2381>, so finding a copy is
pretty easy. I think it has aged pretty well and doesn't really
meet the "we don't remember it because it sucks" criterion
mentioned somewhere crossthread from here.
Mike Beede
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
The irony of using the American flag next to the Confederate flag is,
of course, that the flags represented diametrically opposing view
points during the War Betwixt the States.
Mike Marshall
>The irony of using the American flag next to the Confederate flag is,
>of course, that the flags represented diametrically opposing view
>points during the War Betwixt the States.
Confederate: liberty, independence, state rights, preservation of
the Constitution.
Union: Conquest at any cost. By the time Lincoln constructed an army
that could whip Robert E. Lee, he had Grant, Sherman, Sheridan,
Custer and the rest, making war on women and children. These were
the same leaders who lead a war of genocide against the Indians
in the western territories after the war.
"The only good Indians I ever saw were dead." - Sheridan
Sheridan's defenders have tried to disclaim his having coined
this proverb, and they are technically correct, for it will
probably never be known whether the proverb developed from
Sheridan's alleged statement or whether his ill- conceived
utterance was a subjective reformulation of the proverb already
in currency...
The Journal of American Folklore, Vol. 106, No. 419
University of Illinois Press
for the benefit of any nitpickers
-Mike
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
Almost right:
Confederacy: State's rights are supreme to the federal government, up
to and including the right ot leave the union.
Union: State's rights are secondary to the good of the entire union;
succession cannot be unilateral.
The irony of someone romanticizing the cause of the Confederacy while
waving the Stars and Stripes is delicious.
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Mike Marshall <hub...@clemson.edu> wrote:
> Confederate: liberty, independence, state rights, preservation of
> the Constitution.
>
> Union: Conquest at any cost. By the time Lincoln constructed an
> army that could whip Robert E. Lee, he had Grant, Sherman,
> Sheridan, Custer and the rest, making war on women and
> children.
As opposed to just, you know, enslaving them peacefully.
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone objects to any statement I make, I am
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / bal...@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it.-T. Lehrer
***~~~~----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Marshall
>As opposed to just, you know, enslaving them peacefully.
You're one of the last people I'da thought would have pulled that
unrelated subject out of left field, though I'm not surprised that
anyone would be willing to say that the end of slavery was worth
the destruction of the Confederacy.
Others of them, however, adhered to the cause of their late
masters to the last, and I think I am justified in saying that,
whatever their sympathies as a class may have been, a majority
of them either adhered from first to last to the rebellion
or aided and assisted by their labor...
Yankee democratic congressman Niblack, as recorded in
The Congressional Globe, 1866.
-Mike
J.D. Baldwin
>
> You're one of the last people I'da thought would have pulled that
> unrelated subject out of left field, though I'm not surprised that
> anyone would be willing to say that the end of slavery was worth
> the destruction of the Confederacy.
I do take a little more nuanced view of the origins of the Civil War
than my short remark might lead you to believe. There were a lot of
good, decent people in the CSA who really were fighting against what
they perceived, with good reason, was an extreme and unconstitutional
expansion of centralized power at the expense of decentralized state
power.
Furthermore, with the benefit of nearly 150 years of hindsight, I
think the case is strong that a negotiated solution might have avoided
war and slavery *still* would have been abolished, à la the rest of
the world, by around 1870 or maybe 1875. Human slavery was a horror,
but I'm not going to deny that saving more than half a million young
Americans' lives might have been a worthy enough goal to tolerate it
for another 10-15 years. (And peaceful abolition might have left us
better off in terms of some of the problems that lingered on
afterwards.)
Furthermore, I think there is some merit in the "American Lenin" view
of Lincoln and the longer-term effect he had on the nature of the
Republic he "saved." I'm not saying I swallow the thesis whole, but
it's interesting and large parts of it are very defensible.
But none of that (or the other thirty paragraphs of content I could
write on the subject) is going to get me to sit still while a CSA
defender criticizes northern generals for "making war on women and
children" while his side's whole way of life was based on the
brutalization and dehumanization of same (along with, incidentally,
some adult males).
James Nicoll
J.D. Baldwin <ne...@baldwin.users.panix.com> wrote:
>
>
>Furthermore, with the benefit of nearly 150 years of hindsight, I
>think the case is strong that a negotiated solution might have avoided
>war and slavery *still* would have been abolished, à la the rest of
>the world, by around 1870 or maybe 1875. Human slavery was a horror,
>but I'm not going to deny that saving more than half a million young
>Americans' lives might have been a worthy enough goal to tolerate it
>for another 10-15 years.
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/haines.demography
Under slavery, blacks had life expectancies of 23 years and
whites had one of nearly 40. Black life expectancy rose after the
end of slavery. There were something like 3.5 million slaves in the
so-called Confederacy so even if we say that all 600,000 war dead
had another 20 years each to live, it doesn't take much additional
lifespan for the years gained in life expectancy to equal the years
lost to the war. I make it something like 4 years per black ex-
slave and assuming a linear progression it seems to be that that
could have been acheived within less than a decade of war's end.
As far as I can tell, delays of eight years or more in the end of
slavery cost more lives than the ACW took.
James Nicoll
Blinky the Wonder Wombat <wkharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Almost right:
>
>Confederacy: State's rights are supreme to the federal government, up
>to and including the right ot leave the union.
Remind me again whether the states that rebelled came out
against the Fugitive Slave Act before the ACW.
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
> In article <7220cf8c-1847-4134-bf4b-64431c42f...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
> Blinky the Wonder Wombat <wkharrisjr_i...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Almost right:
>
> >Confederacy: State's rights are supreme to the federal government, up
> >to and including the right ot leave the union.
>
> Remind me again whether the states that rebelled came out
> against the Fugitive Slave Act before the ACW.
Touche! I guess that should have included the rider: "except when
convienent for their purposes."
Stephen Graham
> Furthermore, with the benefit of nearly 150 years of hindsight, I
> think the case is strong that a negotiated solution might have avoided
> war and slavery *still* would have been abolished, à la the rest of
> the world, by around 1870 or maybe 1875. Human slavery was a horror,
> but I'm not going to deny that saving more than half a million young
> Americans' lives might have been a worthy enough goal to tolerate it
> for another 10-15 years. (And peaceful abolition might have left us
> better off in terms of some of the problems that lingered on
> afterwards.)
One has to wonder where you think the impetus to abolish slavery in the
United States would come from. Can you point to a successful proposal
for abolition under any circumstances in, say, the previous twenty years?
Mike Marshall
>but I'm not going to deny that saving more than half a million young
>Americans' lives might have been a worthy enough goal to tolerate it
>for another 10-15 years. (And peaceful abolition might have left us
>better off in terms of some of the problems that lingered on
>afterwards.)
There's no way to tell, it might have lasted a lot longer than that:
"The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally,
socially and physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing is
necessary for their instruction as a race and, I hope, will prepare and
lead them to better things. How long their subjection may be necessary
is known and ordered by a wise and merciful Providence. Their
emancipation will sooner result from a mild and melting influence
than the storms and contests of fiery controversy. This influence,
though slow, is sure."
Robert E. Lee
As we saw, under the "storms and contests of fiery controversy" model,
true emancipation took over 100 years, given that blacks didn't have
protection under the law, all the benefits of the Constitution or
access to the ballot box until after their Civil Rights movement.
>But none of that (or the other thirty paragraphs of content I could
>write on the subject) is going to get me to sit still while a CSA
>defender criticizes northern generals for "making war on women and
>children" while his side's whole way of life was based on the
>brutalization and dehumanization of same (along with, incidentally,
>some adult males).
Your characterization of Robert E. Lee's, or Wade Hampton's, or my
Great Grandfather's "whole way of life" leaves a little bit to be
desired.
Here's a little something to help bring this back on topic for a comic strip
newsgroup:
http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~hubcap/d.oldcartoons/history.gif
-Mike
James Nicoll
The Canadas phased slavery out starting under Osgoode and
Simcoe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_Against_Slavery
(Lower Canada did it differently by, IIRC, deciding there were
no legal means by which a slave could be compelled to stay, although
of course people were still free to buy slaves and presumably
a stout pair of shoes for the slaves to wear as they legged it
for Upper Canada)
The British Empire passed the Slavery Abolition Act in
1833
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act
And it isn't so much before as after but Brazil used
the Golden Law to end slavery in 1888.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lei_Aurea
You might be able to end US slavery earlier by strangling
King Cotton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_cotton
by having US troops bring the boll weevil back from Mexico after 1840.
J.D. Baldwin
> >write on the subject) is going to get me to sit still while a CSA
> >defender criticizes northern generals for "making war on women and
> >children" while his side's whole way of life was based on the
> >brutalization and dehumanization of same (along with, incidentally,
> >some adult males).
>
> Your characterization of Robert E. Lee's, or Wade Hampton's, or my
> Great Grandfather's "whole way of life" leaves a little bit to be
> desired.
Fine. Amend by replacing "was based" with "depended."
Mike Marshall
> Under slavery, blacks had life expectancies of 23 years and
>whites had one of nearly 40. Black life expectancy rose after the
>end of slavery. There were something like 3.5 million slaves in the
>so-called Confederacy so even if we say that all 600,000 war dead
>had another 20 years each to live, it doesn't take much additional
>lifespan for the years gained in life expectancy to equal the years
>lost to the war. I make it something like 4 years per black ex-
>slave and assuming a linear progression it seems to be that that
>could have been acheived within less than a decade of war's end.
>As far as I can tell, delays of eight years or more in the end of
>slavery cost more lives than the ACW took.
The black population (in the South, there were almost no blacks in the
North) exploded after the abolition of the slave trade (1808).
Fogel and Engerman compare the life expectancies of slaves with
those of the white population in order to demonstrate that slaves
were relatively healthy and well cared for. They found that although
the life expectancy at birth of slaves was 12 percent below that of
whites in 1850 (35.5 years for slave males versus 40.4 years for
white males), it was nearly identical with that of persons in such
developed countries as Holland and France at that time. Furthermore,
slaves had a greater life expectancy than the free workers in
industrial urban centers in England and the United States.
Journal of Interdiciplinary History
Vol. 5, No. 3, Winter, 1975
MIT Press
-Mike
Stephen Graham
> In article <e-udnXDVOoeLpmPV...@speakeasy.net>,
> Stephen Graham <gra...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>> J.D. Baldwin wrote:
>>
>>> Furthermore, with the benefit of nearly 150 years of hindsight, I
>>> think the case is strong that a negotiated solution might have avoided
>>> war and slavery *still* would have been abolished, à la the rest of
>>> the world, by around 1870 or maybe 1875. Human slavery was a horror,
>>> but I'm not going to deny that saving more than half a million young
>>> Americans' lives might have been a worthy enough goal to tolerate it
>>> for another 10-15 years. (And peaceful abolition might have left us
>>> better off in terms of some of the problems that lingered on
>>> afterwards.)
>> One has to wonder where you think the impetus to abolish slavery in the
>> United States would come from. Can you point to a successful proposal
>> for abolition under any circumstances in, say, the previous twenty years?
>
> The Canadas phased slavery out starting under Osgoode and
> Simcoe:
Sorry, I should have specified in the United States.
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
This data raises several questions:How did the living conditions of
the French and Dutch peasants compare to those of the slaves? Poor
nutirition, poor sanitary conditions, and overwork could be expected
to reduce life span. The longer life span of American white men is not
surprising- Americans of that era had better nutirion and less
population density (thus less affected by communicable diseases). The
lower life expancy than industrial workers in the North is again not
surprising- closer living quarters, poor sanitary conditions, and more
hazardous work environement.
It would be intersting, but improbable to determine, to compare the
life span of free black farmers in Africa to slaves in America.
Mike Marshall
>This data raises several questions: How did the living conditions of
>the French and Dutch peasants compare to those of the slaves?
I just wanted supply a drop of good data. Well researched answers to your
question could fill 1,000 academic careers. Even then there wouldn't be
consensus - nobody thinks Fogel and Engerman made up their data, but
plenty of their peers pitch all kinds of great big fits about their
conclusions.
-Mike
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
Well, if they didn't address the questions like the ones I raised in
with just a few moments thought, I coudl see why their peers ripped
their conclusions.
Mike Marshall
I'm the one who didn't address them, I thought you were asking the
newsgroup...
-Mike
Jym Dyer
after the fact and is direct contradiction with the fact that
Southern states initiated hostilities because the feds would
not enforce the Fugitive Slave Act against Massachusetts, which
refused to extradite freed slaves. Massachusetts was exercising
its states' rights, and slaveholders started war over it.
=v= Also, though I know it's fashionable in U.S. discourse to
use the word "right" as an all-purpose noun to support one's
own opinion, but this is a misuse. Slavery is not, and never
has been, a right. It is a wrong. Ditto for Jim Crow laws and
the other attacks on civil rights that continue up to this day.
<_Jym_>
Jym Dyer
=v= But only a drop. Don't look any closer, you might
see the cracks and the pancake makeup.
<_Jym_>
Mike Marshall
>=v= Actually the revisionist "states' rights" justification came
Hee hee... That's why States Rights Gist's parents named him States Rights.
>Massachusetts was exercising its states' rights
Purloining is not the right of any state.
>Slavery is not, and never has been, a right.
That's why you are not worth talking too, you live in CooCoo land,
separated from reality. I guess you want to ditch the 13th amendment,
since there is no reason for it.
-Mike
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
> =v= Actually the revisionist "states' rights" justification came
> after the fact and is direct contradiction with the fact that
> Southern states initiated hostilities because the feds would
> not enforce the Fugitive Slave Act against Massachusetts, which
> refused to extradite freed slaves. Massachusetts was exercising
> its states' rights, and slaveholders started war over it.
>
Hmm, I never heard of this incident as the immediate cause of the
bombardment of Ft. Sumtner. Any references I can read to further
educate myself (and I ask that in all sincerity)?
Alhtough this might have been the tipping point for the start of
hostility, I find it hard to believe that it was the sole cause o fthe
war. Fourty years of dust-ups leading up to the Civil War suggest that
the divides between the regions were many and deep.
Stephen Graham
> Jym Dyer <j...@econet.org> writes:
>> =v= Actually the revisionist "states' rights" justification came
>
> Hee hee... That's why States Rights Gist's parents named him States Rights.
Let's just say that there were those states's rights that the
secessionists-to-be approved of and those they didn't approve of.
>> Massachusetts was exercising its states' rights
>
> Purloining is not the right of any state.
Nor was nullification of expressly-granted federal powers but that was
popular in certain states' rights circles once upon a time.
>> Slavery is not, and never has been, a right.
>
> That's why you are not worth talking too, you live in CooCoo land,
> separated from reality. I guess you want to ditch the 13th amendment,
> since there is no reason for it.
We can distinguish between things that had been legal, such as slavery,
and things that were rights. Not that there aren't other provisions in
the Constitution that prohibit things that no state was actively engaged
in, such as granting titles of nobility.
Stephen Graham
> Alhtough this might have been the tipping point for the start of
> hostility, I find it hard to believe that it was the sole cause o fthe
> war. Fourty years of dust-ups leading up to the Civil War suggest that
> the divides between the regions were many and deep.
Normally what I'd recommend at this point is Ed Ayers' (noted historian
of the New South, President of the University of Richmond) essay "What
Caused the Civil War". It's useful. To paraphrase him slightly, if you
have to boil it down to the simplest phrase, the cause of the war is
slavery.
Mike Beede
Mike Marshall <hub...@clemson.edu> wrote:
> Jym Dyer <j...@econet.org> writes:
> >=v= Actually the revisionist "states' rights" justification came
>
> Hee hee... That's why States Rights Gist's parents named him States Rights.
>
> >Massachusetts was exercising its states' rights
>
> Purloining is not the right of any state.
I suppose you don't really mean "purloining" as in "stealing
another's property" as in "slaves," right?
Mike Beede
Antonio E. Gonzalez
<hub...@clemson.edu> wrote:
>Jym Dyer <j...@econet.org> writes:
>>=v= Actually the revisionist "states' rights" justification came
>
>Hee hee... That's why States Rights Gist's parents named him States Rights.
>
>>Massachusetts was exercising its states' rights
>
>Purloining is not the right of any state.
>
I'm sure Harriet Tubman would have found being told she had been
"purloined" funny, same for all the people who she helped by way of
the Underground Railroad . . .
Kinda funny when the "purloined" go and excercise their free will,
fight back even; the 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry Regiment
certainly had a thing or two to say, but mostly do . . .
>>Slavery is not, and never has been, a right.
>
>That's why you are not worth talking too, you live in CooCoo land,
>separated from reality. I guess you want to ditch the 13th amendment,
>since there is no reason for it.
>
The sad thing is that we ended up *needing* a 13th Amendment . . .
--
- ReFlex 76
- "Let's beat the terrorists with our most powerful weapon . . . hot
girl-on-girl action!"
- "The difference between young and old is the difference between
looking forward to your next birthday, and dreading it!"
- Jesus Christ - The original hippie!
<http://reflex76.blogspot.com/>
<http://www.blogger.com/profile/07245047157197572936>
Katana > Chain Saw > Baseball Bat > Hammer
Mike Marshall
>bombardment of Ft. Sumtner. Any references I can read to further
>educate myself (and I ask that in all sincerity)?
The Yankees invaded South Carolina because of the secession, the
Secession was not caused by the invasion. It is true that the
Yankee's violation of the Constitution WRT fugitive slaves was
mentioned in the secession documents of the various states as
one of the reasons for secession.
>Alhtough this might have been the tipping point for the start of
>hostility, I find it hard to believe that it was the sole cause o fthe
>war. Fourty years of dust-ups leading up to the Civil War suggest that
>the divides between the regions were many and deep.
The biggest reason for South Carolina's (and other states) secession was
the Yankees intent to take the western territories for themselves.
Virginia seceded because of the Yankee invasion. As you suggest, there
wasn't a monolithic cause.
-Mike
Mike Marshall
>Let's just say that there were those states's rights that the
>secessionists-to-be approved of and those they didn't approve of.
Article Four of the Constitution wasn't open to interpretation.
There was no hypocrisy on the part of Southerners WRT States Rights.
-Mike
Mike Marshall
>I suppose you don't really mean "purloining" as in "stealing
>another's property" as in "slaves," right?
"No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws
thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or
regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but
shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or
labor may be due."
You guys act like slavery wasn't even real, rather the product
of someone's fevered imagination. Coo Coo land.
-Mike
Mike Marshall
> The sad thing is that we ended up *needing* a 13th Amendment . . .
Since you're such an outraged warrior, could you enumerate some of the
steps you've taken to help eradicate modern day slavery?
-Mike "posting to Usenet doesn't count"
Mike Beede
Mike Marshall <hub...@clemson.edu> wrote:
Oh, it was very real, and it was wicked and wrong and is one of
the biggest blots on the history of our nation--as bad as the
genocide of the native tribes. I understand exactly how real
it was. I'm kind of getting the impression you might not.
It sounds a little like you think it was just a different
economic system.
Mike Beede
racs...@gmail.com
> Blinky the Wonder Wombat <wkharrisjr_i...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >Hmm, I never heard of this incident as the immediate cause of the
> >bombardment of Ft. Sumtner. Any references I can read to further
> >educate myself (and I ask that in all sincerity)?
>
> The Yankees invaded South Carolina because of the secession, the
> Secession was not caused by the invasion. It is true that the
> Yankee's violation of the Constitution WRT fugitive slaves was
> mentioned in the secession documents of the various states as
> one of the reasons for secession.
The Mets, by comparison, were punctilious in rounding up and returning
escaped slaves, which is why they are never mentioned in accounts of
the war. The poor Orioles were the ones who really felt caught in the
middle.
>
> >Alhtough this might have been the tipping point for the start of
> >hostility, I find it hard to believe that it was the sole cause o fthe
> >war. Fourty years of dust-ups leading up to the Civil War suggest that
> >the divides between the regions were many and deep.
>
> The biggest reason for South Carolina's (and other states) secession was
> the Yankees intent to take the western territories for themselves.
> Virginia seceded because of the Yankee invasion. As you suggest, there
> wasn't a monolithic cause.
Incidently, you can't invade your own country. And if you're going to
abandon Union/Confederacy terminology, the terms are Yankee/Rebels.
But the two biggest reasons given at the time for South Carolina's
secession were the failure of some states to apply the Fugitive Slave
Law and the election of an abolitionist president. The issue of
"taking over the Western territories" is likewise a matter of slave
state/free state.
You can slap lipstick all over that hog, but the bottom line is that
the war was fought over slavery.
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
wrote:
Leaving the union because other states wouldn't return runaway slaves?
And how was seceding going to encourage those states to return the
slaves? Give me my ball back or I'm going to go home- that'll teach
you! Geez, what a bunch of maroons!
I think the dispute over protectionist trade laws also had a bearing
on their decision- the southern, agraian states had more to gain if
they could sell more of their crops to Europe without federal taxes.
Slavery, tariffs, it all comes down to money.
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
> Secession was not caused by the invasion.
>
How could the Union "invade" South Carolina when they were in
pocession of Fort Sumtner to start with? The South Carolina militia
were the ones who fired the first shots.
> The biggest reason for South Carolina's (and other states) secession was
> the Yankees intent to take the western territories for themselves.
> Virginia seceded because of the Yankee invasion. As you suggest, there
> wasn't a monolithic cause.
Virginia seceded _after_ the FIrst Battle of Manasas?
Mike Marshall
>On Oct 23, 9:16=A0pm, Mike Marshall <hub...@clemson.edu> wrote:
>> Blinky the Wonder Wombat <wkharrisjr_i...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>> The Yankees invaded South Carolina because of the secession, the
>> Secession was not caused by the invasion.
>>
>How could the Union "invade" South Carolina when they were in
>pocession of Fort Sumtner to start with? The South Carolina militia
>were the ones who fired the first shots.
The duplicitous Lincoln had South Carolina's representatives waiting around
in various anterooms at the White House, assuring them that he would be with
them "soon" and that no change in the status quo would occur in the meantime,
all the while he was really preparing the reinforcement of Fort Sumter.
Being gentlemen, but not Lincoln's chumps, we waited right up until the
reinforcements were almost there before we took Sumter from Major Anderson.
>> The biggest reason for South Carolina's (and other states) secession was
>> the Yankees intent to take the western territories for themselves.
>> Virginia seceded because of the Yankee invasion. As you suggest, there
>> wasn't a monolithic cause.
>Virginia seceded _after_ the FIrst Battle of Manasas?
Your timeline is a little off:
WAR DEPARTMENT,
Washington, April 15, 1861.
SIR: Under the act of Congress "for calling forth the militia to
execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, repel
invasions," &c., approved February 28, 1795, I have the honor
to request Your Excellency to cause to be immediately detached
from the militia of your State the quota designated in the table
below, to serve as infantry or riflemen, for the period of three
months, unless sooner discharged.
The rendezvous for your State will be: ...; Virginia, Staunton,
Wheeling, Gordonsville; ...
...
Virginia Ordinance of Secession
April 17, 1861
AN ORDINANCE
To Repeal the ratification of the Constitution of the United States
of America, by the State of Virginia, and to resume all the rights
and powers granted under said Constitution:
The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the Constitution of
the United States of America, adopted by them in Convention, on the 25th
day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and
eight-eight, having declared that the powers granted them under the
said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and
might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury
and oppression, and the Federal Government having perverted said powers,
not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression
of the Southern slaveholding States.
...
-Mike
Stephen Graham
What was Article One, Section Eight, Paragraph One? Chopped liver?
As I said and you snipped, "Nor was nullification of expressly-granted
Stephen Graham
> Leaving the union because other states wouldn't return runaway slaves?
> And how was seceding going to encourage those states to return the
> slaves? Give me my ball back or I'm going to go home- that'll teach
> you! Geez, what a bunch of maroons!
Seceding to preserve slavery did have it's drawbacks.
> I think the dispute over protectionist trade laws also had a bearing
> on their decision- the southern, agraian states had more to gain if
> they could sell more of their crops to Europe without federal taxes.
Just so you're clear on the concept, export tariffs are prohibited under
the US Constitution. And, oddly enough, when you look at the data,
northern states paid most of the tariffs, since they received most of
the imports.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
<hub...@clemson.edu> wrote:
>Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> writes:
>> The sad thing is that we ended up *needing* a 13th Amendment . . .
>
>Since you're such an outraged warrior, could you enumerate some of the
>steps you've taken to help eradicate modern day slavery?
>
Considering there are *far* bigger concerns nowaday, none that I
know of; but for all I know I *have* been taking steps in subtle ways
. . .
Oh, and nice "lookee there" question, almost managed to dodge the
issue at hand!
Oooh, let me add to Harriet Tubman, and the fine men of the 54th
Massachusetts Volunteer Regiment, Frederick Douglass!
That's Frederick Douglass: former slave, and one of Abraham
Lincoln's closest advisors!
>-Mike "posting to Usenet doesn't count"
Usenet posts don't count?! Hark, my life has been wasted all these
years! Oooh, new 9CWL post!
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
> Blinky the Wonder Wombat <wkharrisjr_i...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >On Oct 23, 9:16=A0pm, Mike Marshall <hub...@clemson.edu> wrote:
> >> Blinky the Wonder Wombat <wkharrisjr_i...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >> The Yankees invaded South Carolina because of the secession, the
> >> Secession was not caused by the invasion.
>
> >How could the Union "invade" South Carolina when they were in
> >pocession of Fort Sumtner to start with? The South Carolina militia
> >were the ones who fired the first shots.
>
> The duplicitous Lincoln had South Carolina's representatives waiting around
> in various anterooms at the White House, assuring them that he would be with
> them "soon" and that no change in the status quo would occur in the meantime,
> all the while he was really preparing the reinforcement of Fort Sumter.
> Being gentlemen, but not Lincoln's chumps, we waited right up until the
> reinforcements were almost there before we took Sumter from Major Anderson.
>
Reinforcing a fort after similar federal installations were previously
overrun is now considered an act of war? I would read "no change in
status quo" to mean attempting to retake the repreviously seized
installations.
I guess I still don't follow- the "invasion" didn't occur until July
1861. Virginia and the tier states seceded in April 1861 _after_
Lincoln asked the states to form militias. Hardly and act of
aggression against Virgina as it was still a member of the Union at
the time of the order. Why wouldn't the various militia rendevous in
another Union state prior to moving into the Confederacy?
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
While export tariffs were probably prohibitted under the Constitution,
the South really chaffed at the import tariffs- these tariffs were
protectionist and essentially diverted more money from the South to
the North.
Mike Marshall
>the US Constitution. And, oddly enough, when you look at the data,
>northern states paid most of the tariffs, since they received most of
>the imports.
The unfair tax burdon on the South was a big issue in through the 20s to
the 50s, but was not mentioned in any of the secession documents as
one of the causes for secession.
-Mike
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
Isn't that covered, though, by the generic "opressions of the Federal
Government" statements? The arguement over tariffs brought the idea of
nullification to the forefront, which in turn became the germ of
"State's Rights".
I think one of the least discussed consequences of the Civil War is
the shift in self-identifications. Before the war, most citizens of
the Union identified themselves as "Virginian" or "New Yorker" or
"Kentuckyian" (or whatever state in which the resided). After the war,
national patriotism came in vogue and we began to think of ourselves
as "Americans" (residents of Texas excepted, of course!).
Mike Beede
Mike Marshall <hub...@clemson.edu> wrote:
> The duplicitous Lincoln had South Carolina's representatives waiting around
> in various anterooms at the White House, assuring them that he would be with
> them "soon" and that no change in the status quo would occur in the meantime,
> all the while he was really preparing the reinforcement of Fort Sumter.
> Being gentlemen, but not Lincoln's chumps, we waited right up until the
> reinforcements were almost there before we took Sumter from Major Anderson.
So escaped slaves are "pilfered," while illegally seized Federal
property is "taken," eh? And that perfidious Lincoln was
duplicitously reinforcing the Federal fort to prevent its being
"taken?"
What a bastard. I really regret voting for him now.
Mike Beede
Stephen Graham
As I said, if you look at the data, the North paid the vast majority of
the duties.
Mike Marshall
>So escaped slaves are "pilfered," while illegally seized Federal
>property is "taken," eh? And that perfidious Lincoln was
>duplicitously reinforcing the Federal fort to prevent its being
>"taken?"
As covered by the Constitution, it was illegal to harbor fugitive slaves.
You can see (by checking) that Navy personnel who went with the South
didn't take their ships. Shipping the man-made Fort Sumter back to the
Yankees wasn't an option, but paying for it was, the representatives
cooling their heels in Lincoln's anterooms were ready to do it. Lincoln
was not dealing honestly with the representatives, the representatives
were dealing honestly with Lincoln. Once states began to secede, it
was unacceptable to have Yankees in Fort Sumter, and other Yankee
forts and arsenals throughout the CSA.
-Mike