Campaign To Persecute Law-Abiding Citizens
Dr Ivan D. Reid
wrote in <3de6560a$0$4786$fa0f...@lovejoy.zen.co.uk>:
> Yes they do. It is a right guaranteed under our constitution which
> is contained in the Magna Carta and Bill of Rights.
Is "our" constitution available on-line anywhere? I must admit
I've never read it.
--
Ivan Reid, Electronic & Computer Eng., Brunel Uni. Ivan...@brunel.ac.uk
KotPT -- "for stupidity above and beyond the call of duty".
M. Eglestone
> Is "our" constitution available on-line anywhere? I must admit
> I've never read it.
> --
> Ivan Reid, Electronic & Computer Eng., Brunel Uni. Ivan...@brunel.ac.uk
> KotPT -- "for stupidity above and beyond the call of duty".
Sure, it can be found in many different areas of the Internet. Here are a
few to get you started. The last one might not work properly, but it comes
from (http://www.bl.uk/index.shtml) which has a search index system.
>http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/england.htm
>http://www.duhaime.org/Law_museum/uk-billr.htm
>http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1689billofrights.html
--
- SMS Mike - (U.S. Air Force, Retired)
============
"After a well publicized shooting spree, why do they always want to take
the guns away from the people who didn't do it?"
--
Moja
<sms...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> Is "our" constitution available on-line anywhere? I must admit
>> I've never read it.
> Sure, it can be found in many different areas of the Internet. Here are a
>few to get you started. The last one might not work properly, but it comes
>from (http://www.bl.uk/index.shtml) which has a search index system.
http://www.magnacarta.demon.co.uk/
Moja
---
Dr. Kevorkian is said to have been considering mixing his
suicide cocktail with Viagra, so at the last moment his
patients wouldn’t know if they were coming or going.
Paul in Australia
"Moja" <moja...@mojaspam.cum> wrote in message
news:3de647d8...@news-server.houston.rr.com...
<snip>
> Robin Page, the Telegraph columnist, was arrested
> last week on suspicion of using insulting words that
> were likely to stir up racial hatred. His supposed
> crime? He told a rally in September that the rural
> minority in favour of hunting should have the same
> rights as blacks, Muslims and gays.
Wow! What happened to freedom of speech?
<snip>
Morton Davis
"Dr Ivan D. Reid" <Ivan...@brunel.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:slrnaucupn.q...@loki.brunel.ac.uk...
> On Thu, 28 Nov 2002 17:46:29 -0000, Wotan <wo...@valhalla.net>
> wrote in <3de6560a$0$4786$fa0f...@lovejoy.zen.co.uk>:
>
>
> > Yes they do. It is a right guaranteed under our constitution which
> > is contained in the Magna Carta and Bill of Rights.
>
> Is "our" constitution available on-line anywhere? I must admit
> I've never read it.
>
Do a GOOGLE. That's what GOOGLE is for. Yes, it is online.
-*MORT*-
Shaun
<Ivan...@brunel.ac.uk> wrote:
>On Thu, 28 Nov 2002 17:46:29 -0000, Wotan <wo...@valhalla.net>
> wrote in <3de6560a$0$4786$fa0f...@lovejoy.zen.co.uk>:
>
>
>> Yes they do. It is a right guaranteed under our constitution which
>> is contained in the Magna Carta and Bill of Rights.
>
> Is "our" constitution available on-line anywhere? I must admit
>I've never read it.
>
Neither have the gun nuts.
Key phrases about "Catholics" and "as allowed by law" disappear
whenever they quote it
Mick Tilley
"Paul in Australia" <pa...@triplanets.com> wrote in message
news:3de6b37a$0$30588$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
The answer to that question is the subject of a 100 year Ministry of Truth
gagging order.
Mick Tilley
"Shaun" <shaun....@spaajnvlcfjymmngdomtmmmam.ntlworld.com> wrote in
message news:3de6c20d...@newscache.cable.ntlworld.com...
Article 7. That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their
Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.
James II never disarmed the Catholics in the first place, therefore it was
only the Protestants who needed to assert the right. "Allowed by law"
referred to English Common Law, which clearly permitted the possession of
arms by all. (See Blackstone's Commentaries inter alia.)
By the way, do you remember your contention that "only one or two well-to-do
people" possessed firearms in England in years gone by. Well cop this lot
Firearms surrendered in England and Wales under amnesties since 1933
1933 16,409
1935 8,469
1937 14,000
1946 76,000
1961 70,000
1965 41,000
1968 25,088
1988 42,725
Total 293691
These figures exclude rounds of ammunition surrendered (795,000 in 1968; 1.5
million in 1988), other "offensive weapons" (4,280 in 1988), and the
substantial numbers of firearms handed in other than during amnesties;
58,006 firearms were handed to the Metropolitan Police alone from 1946 to
1969, for instance. In the 1965 amnesty a man in Royston, Hertfordshire,
handed over an anti-tank gun, four service rifles, 12,000 rounds of
ammunition, several live grenades and three booby traps. In 1988 a man in
Windsor surrendered 88 boxes of ammunition, three machine-guns (one with
tripod), four rifles, three revolvers, a flare pistol and an anti-aircraft
gun. Now tell us again, "only one or two well-to-do people in England owned
firearms". Phew! What a relief the poor people didn't have any, eh? That
would have been really frightening!
M. Eglestone
> > On Thu, 28 Nov 2002 20:23:19 +0000 (UTC), "Dr Ivan D. Reid"
> > <Ivan...@brunel.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> >On Thu, 28 Nov 2002 17:46:29 -0000, Wotan <wo...@valhalla.net>
> > wrote in <3de6560a$0$4786$fa0f...@lovejoy.zen.co.uk>:
> >
> >
> >> Yes they do. It is a right guaranteed under our constitution which
> >> is contained in the Magna Carta and Bill of Rights.
> >
> > Is "our" constitution available on-line anywhere? I must admit
> >I've never read it.
> Shaun wrote:
>
> Neither have the gun nuts.
>
> Key phrases about "Catholics" and "as allowed by law" disappear
> whenever they quote it
----------------------------
It's fairly obvious that you have not read, or didn't understand the
history behind that firearms clause, Shaun. Try reading a few of the
comments written by Blackstone, one of England's foremost authorities on
English Common Law.
If you take a good hard look at the U.S. and English Bill of Rights, you
will find marked similarities between the two documents. The concerns for
the rights of the PEOPLE remained a Primary Concern in American Law as we
set up our "New" system of Government. Our basic legal system, of course,
was based upon, "English Common Law" - which should surprise no one.
Blackstone's commentaries on English Common Law (The Barrister's Bible)
were a major influence on the U.S. legal system as well. It's a shame that
"The History of England" isn't taught IN England. It was Mandatory in U.S.
public schools when I attended.
--
- SMS Mike -
Ricky
be ashamed of our history because (apparently) it offends our ethnic
minorities.
Even the Union Flag is considered offensive in some parts of the country!!
Anyone want to make any bets on when the UK becomes the first western
country to adopt the Sharia law?
Ricky
"M. Eglestone" <sms...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3DE6F471...@bellsouth.net...
Moja
<sms...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>It's a shame that
>"The History of England" isn't taught IN England. It was Mandatory in U.S.
>public schools when I attended.
Would that be the same public schools that taught generation after
generation that Lincoln prosecuted the War of Northern Aggression to
free the slaves?
That is undoubtedly the Biggest Lie ever perpetrated on the entire
world. It has serious competition only from other Big Lies, like the
"surprise" attack on Pearl Harbor and the claim that no one in the US
intelligence community knew anything about the 911 attacks.
Did you know that Britain almost forged a political alliance with
Texas before it joined the Union? The reason: Britain needed the
agricultural products of the South, particularly cotton. But US
prohibitive tariffs prevented free trade, and that in turn forced the
South to secede to escape the tariffs.
But Lincoln could not allow that to happen because then the entire
country would be flooded with cheap goods from overseas and that would
wreck the fledgling American industries and make America vulnerable to
subjugation by foreign interests.
For those of you still wallowing in ignorance and you have any
intellectual integrity left after being so thoroughly brainwashed, you
might want to read up on this subject of how "The Great Emancipator"
was really a Fascist Tyrant foisted on the scene by Northern special
interests to prevent the South from engaging in free trade with
Britain and Europe.
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/hummel.html
This web page presents several cogent reviews of Prof. Jeffrey
Hummel's masterpiece "Emancipating Slaves and Enslaving Free Men: A
History of the Amercican Civil War". If you take the time to read his
book, especially the extensive bibliographical essays contained
therein, you will come away with the knowledge that Lincoln had no
intention of emancipating any slaves - at least not in the Yankee
North.
Another book that is highly recommended, especially for British
readers, is Charles Adam's "When in the Course of Human Events". It is
filled with material taken from British and European magazines
published at the time of the War. Those articles corroberate Hummel's
work.
Here are some facts:
1. The North kept slaves all throughout the War.
2. Lincoln would not repeal the Fugitive Slave Act, which made it a
crime to harbor escaped slaves from the South.
3. The Emancipation Proclamation only applied to the "rebel
territories" and did not abolish slavery anywhere in the North.
4. Lincoln forced California to repeal its earlier version of the EP
because he did not want Negros to come to the North.
5. The Confederate States of America abolished slavery prior to the
surrender at Appomattox Courthouse. Male slaves were conscripted into
the Confederate Army.
6. Slavery was finally abolished in the North by the Thirteenth
Amendment to the US Constitution, well after Lincoln's death.
Moja
--
"If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit
the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to
limit those guarantees."
-- Bill Clinton, The Impeached Traitor of America
John A. Stovall
snipped
Good stuff
>For those of you still wallowing in ignorance and you have any
>intellectual integrity left after being so thoroughly brainwashed, you
>might want to read up on this subject of how "The Great Emancipator"
>was really a Fascist Tyrant foisted on the scene by Northern special
>interests to prevent the South from engaging in free trade with
>Britain and Europe.
>
>http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/hummel.html
>
>This web page presents several cogent reviews of Prof. Jeffrey
>Hummel's masterpiece "Emancipating Slaves and Enslaving Free Men: A
>History of the Amercican Civil War". If you take the time to read his
>book, especially the extensive bibliographical essays contained
>therein, you will come away with the knowledge that Lincoln had no
>intention of emancipating any slaves - at least not in the Yankee
>North.
I also recommend along with Hummel's work a new book:
_The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an
Unnecessary War_ by Thomas J. Dilorenzo
a short review:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams032702.asp
*****************************************************
We thought about it for a long time, "Endeavor to
persevere." And when we had thought about it long
enough, we declared war on the Union.
"The Outlaw Josey Wales"
Spoken by Lone Watie
Morton Davis
"Moja" <moja...@mojaspam.cum> wrote in message
Morton Davis
"Moja" <moja...@mojaspam.cum> wrote in message
news:3de75c74...@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> <sms...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >It's a shame that
> >"The History of England" isn't taught IN England. It was Mandatory in
U.S.
> >public schools when I attended.
>
> Would that be the same public schools that taught generation after
> generation that Lincoln prosecuted the War of Northern Aggression to
> free the slaves?
>
>
was a sidebar of the Civil War.
-*MORT*-
Jeffrey C. Dege
>On Fri, 29 Nov 2002 00:00:33 -0500, "M. Eglestone"
><sms...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>It's a shame that
>>"The History of England" isn't taught IN England. It was Mandatory in U.S.
>>public schools when I attended.
>
>Would that be the same public schools that taught generation after
>generation that Lincoln prosecuted the War of Northern Aggression to
>free the slaves?
>
>That is undoubtedly the Biggest Lie ever perpetrated on the entire
>world.
And the claim that the war wasn't fought over slavery is revisionsist
nonsense.
Read the debates, the newspaper editorials, the campaigns, etc., of the
period between Dredd Scott and the succession.
The primary issue was slavery, and there's no question about it. The
South demanded that slavery be accepted everywhere and the North refused.
>It has serious competition only from other Big Lies, like the
>"surprise" attack on Pearl Harbor and the claim that no one in the US
>intelligence community knew anything about the 911 attacks.
Again, revisionist nonsense. Everyone knew the Japanese were planning
an attack, but the idea that anyone in the US expected an attack at
Pearl is fantasy.
Similarly, there were many who were aware of the dangers that Al Quaida
represented, but the idea that anyone had any specific knowledge of what
they were planning is again a fantasy.
--
All the great governments of the world---those now existing, as well
as those that have passed away---have been of this character. They have
been mere bands of robbers, who have associated for purposes of plunder,
conquest, and the enslavement of their fellow men. And their laws, as
they have called them, have been only such agreements as they have found
it necessary to enter into, in order to maintain their organizations,
and act together in plundering and enslaving others, and in securing to
each his agreed share of the spoils.
All these laws have had no more real obligation than have the agreements
which brigands, bandits, and pirates find it necessary to enter into
with each other, for the more successful accomplishment of their crimes,
and the more peaceable division of their spoils.
- Lysander Spooner, "Natural Law"
Jeffrey C. Dege
>On Fri, 29 Nov 2002 14:33:00 GMT, moja...@mojaspam.cum (Moja) wrote:
>
>>This web page presents several cogent reviews of Prof. Jeffrey
>>Hummel's masterpiece "Emancipating Slaves and Enslaving Free Men: A
>>History of the Amercican Civil War". If you take the time to read his
>>book, especially the extensive bibliographical essays contained
>>therein, you will come away with the knowledge that Lincoln had no
>>intention of emancipating any slaves - at least not in the Yankee
>>North.
>
>I also recommend along with Hummel's work a new book:
>
>_The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an
>Unnecessary War_ by Thomas J. Dilorenzo
I'd suggest that you both give up on historians and read Lincolns speaches
and letters.
--
The government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem.
- Milton Friedman
Ray
I am not aware of any examples where Catholics cannot own arms in the
United States.
Speaking of political correctness gone mad: The Aussies are going for
a full gun ban and they are also attempting to outlaw Santa Claus.
Both sound like sick jokes but it is true.
The UK also suffers from political correct madness. A Brit standing up
for the rights of rural people was jailed for "hate" speech but the
iman in London msoques are allowed to make threats with no
consequences. The UK police are more interested in arresting people
for politically incorrect speech than arresting violent criminals.
Once guns were banned - the other rights in these countries have come
under threat. This is a lesson for Americans and gun owners. The
Second protects all of your other rights. Never give an inch.
John A. Stovall
wrote:
>On Fri, 29 Nov 2002 13:03:21 GMT, John A. Stovall <johnas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>On Fri, 29 Nov 2002 14:33:00 GMT, moja...@mojaspam.cum (Moja) wrote:
>>
>>>This web page presents several cogent reviews of Prof. Jeffrey
>>>Hummel's masterpiece "Emancipating Slaves and Enslaving Free Men: A
>>>History of the Amercican Civil War". If you take the time to read his
>>>book, especially the extensive bibliographical essays contained
>>>therein, you will come away with the knowledge that Lincoln had no
>>>intention of emancipating any slaves - at least not in the Yankee
>>>North.
>>
>>I also recommend along with Hummel's work a new book:
>>
>>_The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an
>>Unnecessary War_ by Thomas J. Dilorenzo
>
>I'd suggest that you both give up on historians and read Lincolns speaches
>and letters.
So, how about this one, "You will take possession by military force,
of the printing establishments of the New York World and Journal of
Commerce...and prohibit an further publication thereof...you are
therefore commanded forthwith to arrest and imprison...the editors,
proprietors and publishers of the aforesaid newspapers"
Order from Abraham Lincoln to General John Dix, May 18, 1864
Some much for his abiding by the First Amendment.
You need to read his speeches and letters better.
Then you might understand he was not the "Great Emancipator" but
rather, "America's Lenin".
M. Eglestone
> > On Fri, 29 Nov 2002 00:00:33 -0500, "M. Eglestone"
> > <sms...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> >It's a shame that
> >"The History of England" isn't taught IN England. It was Mandatory in U.S.
> >public schools when I attended.
> Moja wrote:
>
> Would that be the same public schools that taught generation after
> generation that Lincoln prosecuted the War of Northern Aggression to
> free the slaves?
The Civil war was about "Economics;" that, and nothing more. We all know
that slavery was an element in the economic picture painted during the war.
How large a part it played depends upon your own personal viewpoint.
I doubt that anyone will argue that the U.S. Civil War was totally
unnecessary, and that the number of deaths on both sides was staggering to
the imagination. But it DID happen, and there are hundreds of books about
it; each with its own interpretation of the players intentions, the events
which occurred before, during and after, and the reasons behind them.
Now, after having said that, was there any REAL reason that you felt it
was necessary to change the subject of this thread. Do you not know enough
about English History to make intelligent comments in that area?
Jeffrey C. Dege
>On 29 Nov 2002 15:47:54 GMT, jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C. Dege)
>wrote:
>
>>and letters.
>
>So, how about this one, "You will take possession by military force,
>of the printing establishments of the New York World and Journal of
>Commerce...and prohibit an further publication thereof...you are
>therefore commanded forthwith to arrest and imprison...the editors,
>proprietors and publishers of the aforesaid newspapers"
> Order from Abraham Lincoln to General John Dix, May 18, 1864
>
>Some much for his abiding by the First Amendment.
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended,
unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may
require it.
--
[A]fter having thus successively taken each member of the community in
its powerful grasp, and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then
extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of
society with a network of complicated rules, minute and uniform, through
which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot
penetrate to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered but
softened, bent and guided; men are seldom forced to act, but they are
constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it
prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates,
extinguishes, and stupifies a people, till each nation is reduced to be
nothing better than a flock of timid and industrial animals, of which
government is the shepard. - I have always thought that servitude of
the regular, quiet, and gentle kind which I have just described might
be combined more easily than it is commonly believed with some of the
outward forms of freedom and that it might even establish itself under
the wing of the sovereignty of the people.
- Alexis de Tocqueville, "Democracy in America", Part II, Book IV, chap vi.
Jeffrey C. Dege
>
>
> The Civil war was about "Economics;" that, and nothing more. We all know
>that slavery was an element in the economic picture painted during the war.
>How large a part it played depends upon your own personal viewpoint.
The issue was that the South insisted that slavery be accepted as legal
everywhere in the US, and the North refused.
--
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the
most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under
omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep,
his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our
own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of
their consciences.
- C. S. Lewis
John A. Stovall
wrote:
>On Fri, 29 Nov 2002 12:52:06 -0500, M. Eglestone <sms...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> The Civil war was about "Economics;" that, and nothing more. We all know
>>that slavery was an element in the economic picture painted during the war.
>>How large a part it played depends upon your own personal viewpoint.
>
>The issue was that the South insisted that slavery be accepted as legal
>everywhere in the US, and the North refused.
Then why did the northern Union states continue to have legal slavery
even after the civil war until the passage of the 13th Amendment?
Why did Grant own a slave?
*****************************************************
"And - the rifle? Wouldn't go out naked of a rifle.
When shoes and clothes, and food, when ever hope
is gone, we'll have the rifle. When gramps came -did
I tell you? - he had pepper and salt and a rifle."
"The Grapes of Wrath"
John Steinbeck, 1939
John A. Stovall
wrote:
>On Fri, 29 Nov 2002 17:21:34 GMT, John A. Stovall <johnas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>On 29 Nov 2002 15:47:54 GMT, jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C. Dege)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>I'd suggest that you both give up on historians and read Lincolns speaches
>>>and letters.
>>
>>So, how about this one, "You will take possession by military force,
>>of the printing establishments of the New York World and Journal of
>>Commerce...and prohibit an further publication thereof...you are
>>therefore commanded forthwith to arrest and imprison...the editors,
>>proprietors and publishers of the aforesaid newspapers"
>> Order from Abraham Lincoln to General John Dix, May 18, 1864
>>
>>Some much for his abiding by the First Amendment.
>
> The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended,
> unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may
> require it.
I didn't know New York was part of the Confederacy. Why can't you
face the fact that Lincoln was a power mad dictator who cared only for
expanding the power of the Federal government?
Want some of his statement about African American's. He would fit
right in as the main speaker at a Klan meeting.
Moja
<oglet...@oglethorpe.com> wrote:
>> Would that be the same public schools that taught generation after
>> generation that Lincoln prosecuted the War of Northern Aggression to
>> free the slaves?
>Funny, that's not what I was taught in histoiry class. Freeing the slaves
>was a sidebar of the Civil War.
You must have been educated in the South.
Moja
wrote:
>>Would that be the same public schools that taught generation after
>>generation that Lincoln prosecuted the War of Northern Aggression to
>>free the slaves?
>>That is undoubtedly the Biggest Lie ever perpetrated on the entire
>>world.
>And the claim that the war wasn't fought over slavery is revisionsist
>nonsense.
>Read the debates, the newspaper editorials, the campaigns, etc., of the
>period between Dredd Scott and the succession.
>The primary issue was slavery, and there's no question about it. The
>South demanded that slavery be accepted everywhere and the North refused.
Talk about revisionist nonsense. The literature of the period does not
support the claim that the War was fought to abolish slavery. Indeed
slavery was an issue but it was not the cause of the War.
>Again, revisionist nonsense. Everyone knew the Japanese were planning
>an attack, but the idea that anyone in the US expected an attack at
>Pearl is fantasy.
Talk about revisionist nonsense. Why did FDR order the military to
dismantle the long-range radar and the code breaking machines at Pearl
Harbor?
>Similarly, there were many who were aware of the dangers that Al Quaida
>represented, but the idea that anyone had any specific knowledge of what
>they were planning is again a fantasy.
It is fantasy to claim that the world intelligence community did not
know well in advance the details of the 911 attack.
Moja
wrote:
>>>This web page presents several cogent reviews of Prof. Jeffrey
>>>Hummel's masterpiece "Emancipating Slaves and Enslaving Free Men: A
>>>History of the Amercican Civil War". If you take the time to read his
>>>book, especially the extensive bibliographical essays contained
>>>therein, you will come away with the knowledge that Lincoln had no
>>>intention of emancipating any slaves - at least not in the Yankee
>>>North.
>>I also recommend along with Hummel's work a new book:
>>_The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an
>>Unnecessary War_ by Thomas J. Dilorenzo
>I'd suggest that you both give up on historians and read Lincolns speaches
>and letters.
Have you read the books cited above?
Moja
<johnas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>I also recommend along with Hummel's work a new book:
>>>_The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an
>>>Unnecessary War_ by Thomas J. Dilorenzo
>>I'd suggest that you both give up on historians and read Lincolns speaches
>>and letters.
>So, how about this one, "You will take possession by military force,
>of the printing establishments of the New York World and Journal of
>Commerce...and prohibit an further publication thereof...you are
>therefore commanded forthwith to arrest and imprison...the editors,
>proprietors and publishers of the aforesaid newspapers"
> Order from Abraham Lincoln to General John Dix, May 18, 1864
>Some much for his abiding by the First Amendment.
>You need to read his speeches and letters better.
>Then you might understand he was not the "Great Emancipator" but
>rather, "America's Lenin".
"Towering genius disdains a beaten path. It seeks regions hitherto
unexplored. It sees no distinction in adding story to story, upon the
monuments of fame, erected to the memory of others. It denies that it
is glory enough to serve under any chief. It scorns to tread in the
footsteps of any predecessor, however illustrious. It thirsts and
burns for distinction; and, if possible, it will have it, whether at
the expense of emancipating slaves or enslaving free men."
-Abraham Lincoln, America's First Fascist Tyrant
Moja
<johnas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended,
>> unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may
>> require it.
>I didn't know New York was part of the Confederacy. Why can't you
>face the fact that Lincoln was a power mad dictator who cared only for
>expanding the power of the Federal government?
Because the poster has been so thoroughly been brainwashed that he
does not have the intellectual integrity to learn the truth on his
own, even when it is staring him in the face.
>Want some of his statement about African American's. He would fit
>right in as the main speaker at a Klan meeting.
Lincoln despised Negros to the extent that he would not allow the
repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act, only freed the slaves in the "rebel
territories" (over which he had no jurisdiction) with his
Emancipation Proclamation, forced California to repeal its earlier
version of the EP and did not free the slaves kept in the North. The
Confederate States of America eventually freed the slaveson its own,
whereas it took the 13th Amendment to free the slaves in the North,
well after Lincoln was dead.
The title of "Great Emancipator" is the Biggest Lie ever perpetrated
in the history of the world. And it is all there in the written record
for any rational person to see for himself.
Moja
>The UK police are more interested in arresting people
>for politically incorrect speech than arresting violent criminals.
That's because they are utter failures at arresting violent criminals.
>Once guns were banned - the other rights in these countries have come
>under threat. This is a lesson for Americans and gun owners. The
>Second protects all of your other rights. Never give an inch.
That's why I am a Life Member of both the National Rifle Association
(NRA) and the Texas State Rifle Association (TSRA).
BTW, people living in foreign countries are welcome to become NRA
members (and TSRA members too). You can join online at:
http://www.nra,org/ - You can choose among three different
publications from the NRA.
http://www.tsra.com/ - You will receive the TSRA publication which
will give you an insight into how seriously Texas takes RKBA.
If Britain and Oz had taken RKBA as seriously as Texas, you would
still have your guns.
I guarantee that if the federal govt ever dares to attempt to
confiscate our guns - or forces us to do anything that leads up to
confiscation, like mass registration - we will draw up Articles of
Secession and vote them into effect.
Moja
<sms...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Now, after having said that, was there any REAL reason that you felt it
>was necessary to change the subject of this thread.
Since I started this thread, I decided to take a side trip. I had no
way of knowing that it would become a new thread.
BTW, who died and made you head of Usenet? If you don't like the way I
post to these forums, then call 1-800-EAT-SHIT and whine to them.
> Do you not know enough
>about English History to make intelligent comments in that area?
Have you read Hummel's book?
Roger Dewhurst
"Ricky" <richard.edwa...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:LaIF9.544$927....@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net...
> In England in particular and the UK in general, children are
now taught to
> be ashamed of our history because (apparently) it offends our
ethnic
> minorities.
> Even the Union Flag is considered offensive in some parts of
the country!!
> Anyone want to make any bets on when the UK becomes the first
western
> country to adopt the Sharia law?
I thought that the Dutch are just leading the field.
R
>
> Ricky
>
Moja
wrote:
>> The Civil war was about "Economics;" that, and nothing more. We all know
>>that slavery was an element in the economic picture painted during the war.
>>How large a part it played depends upon your own personal viewpoint.
>The issue was that the South insisted that slavery be accepted as legal
>everywhere in the US, and the North refused.
That was not the cause of the War of Northern Aggression. Ever hear of
the Tariff of Abominations? It had nothing to do with the issue of
slavery, not even remotely.
For 30 years the North had imposed excessive tariffs on the South and
that was the cause of secession. The North realized that once the
South started importing cheap goods from overseas that it would flood
the North with these goods and that would bankrupt Northern industry.
The North had no other choice but to start the War to prevent that
from happening. If the South had been permitted to wreck the
industrial economy of the North, the US would have become vulnerable
to hostile takeover by foreign powers.
The only way to prevent that possibility was to maintained a military
presence at Fort Sunter - to collect tariffs. But the South foolishly
fired on the garrison (no one was injured) and that gave the North the
excuse to declare war on the South.
Read Hummel and get your facts straight.
John A. Stovall
Any one who doesn't think this should read a book on Lincoln by an
African-American Lerone Bennett on Lincoln in _Forced Into Glory:
Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream_
and more:
http://www.mises.org/misesreview_detail.asp?control=173
*****************************************************
Let boys want pleasure, and men
Struggle for power, and women perhaps for fame,
And the servile to serve a Leader and the dupes
to be duped.
Yours is not theirs.
"Be Angry at the Sun"
Robinson Jeffers
M. Eglestone
>
> Have you read Hummel's book?
What are Hummels historical credentials?
Have you read Blackstone's?
Moja
<johnas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>The issue was that the South insisted that slavery be accepted as legal
>>everywhere in the US, and the North refused.
>Then why did the northern Union states continue to have legal slavery
>even after the civil war until the passage of the 13th Amendment?
>Why did Grant own a slave?
Why did Lincoln refuse to repeal the Fugitive Slave Act at the
insistence of the abolitionists he depended on for re-election in
1864?
Why did he force California to repeal its earlier version of the
Emancipation Proclamation?
Why did his version of the EP only pertain to the "rebel territories",
over which he had no legitimate jurisdiction?
you do not have to succumb to these Big Lies, not when books like we
have cited here are available from scholars who have spent their
lifetimes dedicated to uncovering the truth. Once again here is the
mimimal list (listed in chronological order of publication for anyone
wanting to learn the truth:
Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men:
A History of the American Civil War
by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel
Paperback - 440 pages (May 1996)
Open Court Publishing Company
ISBN: 0812693124
-----
When in the Course of Human Events
by Charles Adams
Hardcover - 272 pages (January 2000)
Rowman & Littlefield; ISBN: 0847697223
-----
Our Secret Constitution: How Lincoln Redefined American Democracy
by George P. Fletcher
Hardcover: 272 pages (May 2001)
Publisher: Oxford Univ Press
ISBN: 0195141423
-----
The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an
Unnecessary War
by Thomas J. Dilorenzo
Hardcover: 272 pages (March 2002)
Publisher: Prima Publishing
ISBN: 0761536418
-----
Another interesting question - and one that is highly controversial -
is why didn't the slaves in America revolt more than the few instances
when they did? In all other instances of slavery in the Western
Hemisphere, the slaves did revolt and won their freedom. But not in
America?
If these "slaves" were really slaves, then why were they paid a wage
for their work, albeit a small wage? How did Sam Houston's own
personal slave have $2000 to give Mrs. Houston to help save the estate
when Sam Houston died penniless? Why were slaves allowed to purchase
their freedom in a program called Manumission? Where did they come up
with the money to pay?
Why did slaves ride around with guns on their hips? Does that sound
like real slavery to you? Or could it be that these "slaves" in
America were really indentured servants? Could it be that the vast
majority of them had it good enough that they did not want to revolt?
A slave was an investment of the slave owner, so does it not stand to
reason that reasonable slave owners wanted to preserve their
investment by treating their slaves in a reasonable manner, like
paying them a pittance so they could purchase personal necessities,
and by giving them guns so they could protect themselves from Indians?
Are we any less slaves today? In many parts of the English-speaking
world, citizens are not allowed to ride around with guns on their
hips. In fact they are not even allowed to own guns. Did these slaves
of the past era have more essential rights than we do today?
To "heal" the wounds of the War, the federal govt instituted so-called
"Land Grant" colleges and universities with the requirement that the
schools would revise history to do the least damage regarding the War
era to subsequent generations. Perhaps it was necessary to perpetrate
the Big Lies - to "repair" the damage.
Greg Hennessy
>
>For 30 years the North had imposed excessive tariffs on the South and
>that was the cause of secession. The North realized that once the
>South started importing cheap goods from overseas that it would flood
>the North with these goods and that would bankrupt Northern industry.
>
I've read some revisionist shite in my time on USENET but that truly takes
the biscuit.
greg
--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
Wollt ihr das Bett in Flammen sehen
Shaun
<mickt...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Shaun" <shaun....@spaajnvlcfjymmngdomtmmmam.ntlworld.com> wrote in
>message news:3de6c20d...@newscache.cable.ntlworld.com...
>> On Thu, 28 Nov 2002 20:23:19 +0000 (UTC), "Dr Ivan D. Reid"
>> <Ivan...@brunel.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thu, 28 Nov 2002 17:46:29 -0000, Wotan <wo...@valhalla.net>
>> > wrote in <3de6560a$0$4786$fa0f...@lovejoy.zen.co.uk>:
>> >
>> >
>> >> Yes they do. It is a right guaranteed under our constitution which
>> >> is contained in the Magna Carta and Bill of Rights.
>> >
>> > Is "our" constitution available on-line anywhere? I must admit
>> >I've never read it.
>> >
>>
>> Neither have the gun nuts.
>>
>> Key phrases about "Catholics" and "as allowed by law" disappear
>> whenever they quote it
>>
>
>Article 7. That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their
>Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.
>
>James II never disarmed the Catholics in the first place, therefore it was
>only the Protestants who needed to assert the right. "Allowed by law"
>referred to English Common Law, which clearly permitted the possession of
>arms by all. (See Blackstone's Commentaries inter alia.)
>
>By the way, do you remember your contention that "only one or two well-to-do
>people" possessed firearms in England in years gone by. Well cop this lot
>
>Firearms surrendered in England and Wales under amnesties since 1933
>1933 16,409
>
>1935 8,469
>
>1937 14,000
>
>1946 76,000
>
>1961 70,000
>
>1965 41,000
>
>1968 25,088
>
>1988 42,725
>
>Total 293691
>
>These figures exclude rounds of ammunition surrendered (795,000 in 1968; 1.5
>million in 1988), other "offensive weapons" (4,280 in 1988), and the
>substantial numbers of firearms handed in other than during amnesties;
>58,006 firearms were handed to the Metropolitan Police alone from 1946 to
>1969, for instance. In the 1965 amnesty a man in Royston, Hertfordshire,
>handed over an anti-tank gun, four service rifles, 12,000 rounds of
>ammunition, several live grenades and three booby traps. In 1988 a man in
>Windsor surrendered 88 boxes of ammunition, three machine-guns (one with
>tripod), four rifles, three revolvers, a flare pistol and an anti-aircraft
>gun. Now tell us again, "only one or two well-to-do people in England owned
>firearms". Phew! What a relief the poor people didn't have any, eh? That
>would have been really frightening!
>
>
John A. Stovall
<spamc...@example.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 29 Nov 2002 23:50:21 GMT, moja...@mojaspam.cum (Moja) wrote:
>
>>
>>For 30 years the North had imposed excessive tariffs on the South and
>>that was the cause of secession. The North realized that once the
>>South started importing cheap goods from overseas that it would flood
>>the North with these goods and that would bankrupt Northern industry.
>>
>
>I've read some revisionist shite in my time on USENET but that truly takes
>the biscuit.
Have you read Hummel? By the way he's professor at San Jose State
University in San Jose, a university not know a hot bed of Southern
revisionism.
*******************************************************
"Guard yourself from the terrible empty light of space,
the bottomless
Pool of the stars.
(Expose yourself to it: you might learn something.)"
"Quia Absurdum"
Robinson Jeffers
from "Double Axe"
John A. Stovall
<sms...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> Moja wrote:
>>
>> Have you read Hummel's book?
>---------------
>
> What are Hummels historical credentials?
Have you looked at his. You can get his vita from him at
http://www.sjsu.edu/welcome.html
>
> Have you read Blackstone's?
He doesn't write in may areas of study.
Shaun
<mickt...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Shaun" <shaun....@spaajnvlcfjymmngdomtmmmam.ntlworld.com> wrote in
>message news:3de6c20d...@newscache.cable.ntlworld.com...
>> On Thu, 28 Nov 2002 20:23:19 +0000 (UTC), "Dr Ivan D. Reid"
>> <Ivan...@brunel.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thu, 28 Nov 2002 17:46:29 -0000, Wotan <wo...@valhalla.net>
>> > wrote in <3de6560a$0$4786$fa0f...@lovejoy.zen.co.uk>:
>> >
>> >
>> >> Yes they do. It is a right guaranteed under our constitution which
>> >> is contained in the Magna Carta and Bill of Rights.
>> >
>> > Is "our" constitution available on-line anywhere? I must admit
>> >I've never read it.
>> >
>>
>> Neither have the gun nuts.
>>
>> Key phrases about "Catholics" and "as allowed by law" disappear
>> whenever they quote it
>>
>
>Article 7. That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their
>Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.
>
>James II never disarmed the Catholics in the first place, therefore it was
>only the Protestants who needed to assert the right. "Allowed by law"
>referred to English Common Law, which clearly permitted the possession of
>arms by all. (See Blackstone's Commentaries inter alia.)
>
So you've never read the bit reminding the reader that Papists
weren't allowed arms and the authors were pissed off James II let
them have them ?
or the phase:
"That the subjects which are protestants, may have arms for their
defence suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law."
Which kinda contradicts your assertion on Common law.
>By the way, do you remember your contention that "only one or two well-to-do
>people" possessed firearms in England in years gone by.
Er no, because you made that quote up and put in my mouth to try and
make your argument sound more convincing.
>Well cop this lot
>
>Firearms surrendered in England and Wales under amnesties since 1933
>1933 16,409
>
>1935 8,469
>
>1937 14,000
>
>1946 76,000
>
>1961 70,000
>
>1965 41,000
>
>1968 25,088
>
>1988 42,725
>
>Total 293691
>
Wow, thats over 0.1% of a gun for everyone whos been alive since 1933.
Firearms must be as common as muck
>These figures exclude rounds of ammunition surrendered (795,000 in 1968; 1.5
>million in 1988), other "offensive weapons" (4,280 in 1988), and the
>substantial numbers of firearms handed in other than during amnesties;
>58,006 firearms were handed to the Metropolitan Police alone from 1946 to
>1969, for instance. In the 1965 amnesty a man in Royston, Hertfordshire,
>handed over an anti-tank gun, four service rifles, 12,000 rounds of
>ammunition, several live grenades and three booby traps. In 1988 a man in
>Windsor surrendered 88 boxes of ammunition, three machine-guns (one with
>tripod), four rifles, three revolvers, a flare pistol and an anti-aircraft
>gun.
Now is that because they were war relics hidden in barn and forgotten
about or did the owners decide they were too busy to start the
revolution and needed more space in the attic ?
> Now tell us again, "only one or two well-to-do people in England owned
>firearms".
That would be difficult as I never told you that in the first place
>Phew! What a relief the poor people didn't have any, eh? That
>would have been really frightening!
All those pictures of Home Guard units armed with kitchen knifes on
broom handles are all fakes then
Mick Tilley
"Shaun" <shaun....@spaajnvlcfjymmngdomtmmmam.ntlworld.com> wrote in
message news:3de782c4...@newscache.cable.ntlworld.com...
Repeating my own post back to me in its entirety and without comment - what
a devastating rejoinder!
Jeffrey C. Dege
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 29 Nov 2002 12:52:06 -0500, M. Eglestone <sms...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> The Civil war was about "Economics;" that, and nothing more. We all know
>>>that slavery was an element in the economic picture painted during the war.
>>>How large a part it played depends upon your own personal viewpoint.
>>
>>The issue was that the South insisted that slavery be accepted as legal
>>everywhere in the US, and the North refused.
>
>Then why did the northern Union states continue to have legal slavery
>even after the civil war until the passage of the 13th Amendment?
Odd. I'm from Minnesota, and I don't remember slavery having been
legal here.
>Why did Grant own a slave?
He didn't.
--
It is almost always incorrect to begin the decomposition of a system
into modules on the basis of a flowchart. We propose instead that one
begins with a list of difficult design decisions or design decisions
which are likely to change. Each module is then designed to hide such
a decision from the others.
-- David Parnas
Jeffrey C. Dege
>On Fri, 29 Nov 2002 18:53:28 GMT, John A. Stovall
><johnas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>>The issue was that the South insisted that slavery be accepted as legal
>>>everywhere in the US, and the North refused.
>
>>Then why did the northern Union states continue to have legal slavery
>>even after the civil war until the passage of the 13th Amendment?
>
>>Why did Grant own a slave?
>
>Why did Lincoln refuse to repeal the Fugitive Slave Act at the
>insistence of the abolitionists he depended on for re-election in
>1864?
Because the Constitution specifically requires that requires that fugitive
slaves be returned.
>Why did he force California to repeal its earlier version of the
>Emancipation Proclamation?
>
>Why did his version of the EP only pertain to the "rebel territories",
>over which he had no legitimate jurisdiction?
The rebel territories were under martial law, and were the only ones in
which he could make such a declaration.
--
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and
degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a
war, is worse. A man who has nothing which he cares more about than he does
about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance at
being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than
himself.
- John Stuart Mill
Jeffrey C. Dege
>On 29 Nov 2002 18:30:20 GMT, jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C. Dege)
>wrote:
>
>> unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may
>> require it.
>
>I didn't know New York was part of the Confederacy. Why can't you
>face the fact that Lincoln was a power mad dictator who cared only for
>expanding the power of the Federal government?
Because it simply isn't true.
--
There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought
to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.
- Right-wing extremist John Adams
Jeffrey C. Dege
>
>Lincoln despised Negros to the extent that he would not allow the
>repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act, only freed the slaves in the "rebel
>territories" (over which he had no jurisdiction) with his
>Emancipation Proclamation, forced California to repeal its earlier
>version of the EP and did not free the slaves kept in the North. The
>Confederate States of America eventually freed the slaveson its own,
>whereas it took the 13th Amendment to free the slaves in the North,
>well after Lincoln was dead.
Seems to me you've been reading far too much revisionist history.
Jeffrey C. Dege
>On 29 Nov 2002 15:46:45 GMT, jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C. Dege)
>wrote:
>
>>period between Dredd Scott and the succession.
>
>>The primary issue was slavery, and there's no question about it. The
>>South demanded that slavery be accepted everywhere and the North refused.
>
>Talk about revisionist nonsense. The literature of the period does not
>support the claim that the War was fought to abolish slavery. Indeed
>slavery was an issue but it was not the cause of the War.
The War began because of the North's determination to not let slavery
be extended, into either the new territories or into the free states.
Jeffrey C. Dege
>On 29 Nov 2002 15:47:54 GMT, jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C. Dege)
>wrote:
>
>>>>This web page presents several cogent reviews of Prof. Jeffrey
>>>>Hummel's masterpiece "Emancipating Slaves and Enslaving Free Men: A
>>>>History of the Amercican Civil War". If you take the time to read his
>>>>book, especially the extensive bibliographical essays contained
>>>>therein, you will come away with the knowledge that Lincoln had no
>>>>intention of emancipating any slaves - at least not in the Yankee
>>>>North.
>
>>>I also recommend along with Hummel's work a new book:
>
>>>_The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an
>>>Unnecessary War_ by Thomas J. Dilorenzo
>
>>I'd suggest that you both give up on historians and read Lincolns speaches
>>and letters.
>
>Have you read the books cited above?
http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/speed.htm
Springfield, Illinois
August 24, 1855
Dear Speed:
You know what a poor correspondent I am. Ever since I received your
very agreeable letter of the 22nd. of May I have been intending to
write you in answer to it. You suggest that in political action
now, you and I would differ. I suppose we would; not quite as much,
however, as you may think. You know I dislike slavery; and you
fully admit the abstract wrong of it. So far there is no cause of
difference. But you say that sooner than yield your legal right to
the slave -- especially at the bidding of those who are not
themselves interested, you would see the Union dissolved. I am not
aware that any one is bidding you to yield that right; very
certainly I am not. I leave that matter entirely to yourself. I
also acknowledge your rights and my obligations, under the
constitution, in regard to your slaves. I confess I hate to see the
poor creatures hunted down, and caught, and carried back to their
stripes, and unrewarded toils; but I bite my lip and keep quiet. In
1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip, on a Steam
Boat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do,
that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio, there were, on
board, ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That
sight was a continued torment to me; and I see something like it
every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave-border. It is
hardly fair for you to assume, that I have no interest in a thing
which has, and continually exercises, the power of making me
miserable. You ought rather to appreciate how much the great body
of the Northern people do crucify their feelings, in order to
maintain their loyalty to the Constitution and the Union.
I do oppose the extension of slavery, because my judgment and
feelings so prompt me; and I am under no obligation to the
contrary. If for this you and I must differ, differ we must. You
say if you were President, you would send an army and hang the
leaders of the Missouri outrages upon the Kansas elections; still,
if Kansas fairly votes herself a slave state, she must be admitted,
or the Union must be dissolved. But how if she votes herself a
slave State unfairly -- that is, by the very means for which you
say you would hang men? Must she still be admitted, or the Union be
dissolved? That will be the phase of the question when it first
becomes a practical one. In your assumption that there may be a
fair decision of the slavery question in Kansas, I plainly see you
and I would differ about the Nebraska-law. I look upon that
enactment not as a law, but as violence from the beginning. It was
conceived in violence, passed in violence, is maintained in
violence, and is being executed in violence. I say it was conceived
in violence, because the destruction of the Missouri Compromise,
under the circumstances, was nothing less than violence. It was
passed in violence, because it could not have passed at all but
for the votes of many members in violence of the known will of
their constituents. It is maintained in violence because the
elections since, clearly demand it's repeal, and this demand is
openly disregarded. You say men ought to be hung for the way they
are executing that law; and I say the way it is being executed is
quite as good as any of its antecedents. It is being executed in
the precise way which was intended from the first; else why does no
Nebraska man express astonishment or condemnation? Poor Reeder is
the only public man who has been silly enough to believe that any
thing like fairness was ever intended; and he has been bravely
undeceived.
That Kansas will form a Slave Constitution, and, with it, will ask
to be admitted into the Union, I take to be an already settled
question; and so settled by the very means you so pointedly
condemn. By every principle of law, ever held by any court, North
or South, every negro taken to Kansas is free; yet, in utter
disregard of this -- in the spirit of violence merely -- that
beautiful Legislature gravely passes a law to hang men who shall
venture to inform a negro of his legal rights. This is the
substance, and real object of the law. If, like Haman, they should
hang upon the gallows of their own building, I shall not be among
the mourners for their fate.
In my humble sphere, I shall advocate the restoration of the
Missouri Compromise, so long as Kansas remains a territory; and
when, by all these foul means, it seeks to come into the Union as a
Slave-state, I shall oppose it. I am very loth, in any case, to
withhold my assent to the enjoyment of property acquired, or
located, in good faith; but I do not admit that good faith, in
taking a negro to Kansas, to be held in slavery, is a possibility
with any man. Any man who has sense enough to be the controller of
his own property, has too much sense to misunderstand the
outrageous character of this whole Nebraska business. But I
digress. In my opposition to the admission of Kansas I shall have
some company; but we may be beaten. If we are, I shall not, on that
account, attempt to dissolve the Union. On the contrary, if we
succeed, there will be enough of us to take care of the Union. I
think it probable, however, we shall be beaten. Standing as a unit
among yourselves, you can, directly, and indirectly, bribe enough
of our men to carry the day -- as you could on an open proposition
to establish monarchy. Get hold of some man in the North, whose
position and ability is such, that he can make the support of your
measure -- whatever it may be -- a democratic party necessity, and
the thing is done. Appropos [sic] of this, let me tell you an
anecdote. Douglas introduced the Nebraska bill in January. In
February afterwards, there was a call session of the Illinois
Legislature. Of the one hundred members composing the two branches
of that body, about seventy were democrats. These latter held a
caucus, in which the Nebraska bill was talked of, if not formally
discussed. It was thereby discovered that just three, and no more,
were in favor of the measure. In a day of two Dougla's [sic] orders
came on to have resolutions passed approving the bill; and they
were passed by large majorities!!! The truth of this is vouched for
by a bolting democratic member. The masses too, democratic as well
as whig, were even, nearer unanamous [sic] against it; but as soon
as the party necessity of supporting it, became apparent, the way
the democracy began to see the wisdom and justice of it, was
perfectly astonishing.
You say if Kansas fairly votes herself a free state, as a Christian
you will rather rejoice at it. All decent slaveholders talk that
way; and I do not doubt their candor. But they never vote that way.
Although in a private letter, or conversation, you will express
your preference that Kansas shall be free, you would vote for no
man for Congress who would say the same thing publicly. No such man
could be elected from any district in a slave-state. You think
Stringfellow & Co. ought to be hung; and yet, at the next
presidential election you will vote for the exact type and
representative of Stringfellow. The slave-breeders and
slave-traders, are a small, odious and detested class, among you;
and yet in politics, they dictate the course of all of you, and are
as completely your masters, as you are the master of your own
negroes. You inquire where I now stand. That is a disputed point --
I think I am a whig; but others say there are no whigs, and that I
am an abolitionist. When I was in Washington I voted for the Wilmot
Proviso as good as forty times, and I never heard of any one
attempting to unwhig me for that. I now do no more than oppose the
extension of slavery.
I am not a Know-Nothing. That is certain. How could I be? How can
any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor or
degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy
appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by
declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read
it "all men are created equal, except negroes" When the
Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal,
except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to
this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no
pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where
despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of
hypocracy [sic].
Mary will probably pass a day to two in Louisville in October. My
kindest regards to Mrs. Speed. On the leading subject of this
letter, I have more of her sympathy that I have of yours. And yet
let me say I am
Yours friend forever
A. Lincoln
--
Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, 'What
should be the reward of such sacrifices?' Bid us and our posterity bow the
knee, supplicate the friendship, and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut
the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot
in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth
better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating
contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or
arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit
lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!
- Samuel Adams
Jeffrey C. Dege
>On 29 Nov 2002 18:31:16 GMT, jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C. Dege)
>wrote:
>
>>> The Civil war was about "Economics;" that, and nothing more. We all know
>>>that slavery was an element in the economic picture painted during the war.
>>>How large a part it played depends upon your own personal viewpoint.
>
>>The issue was that the South insisted that slavery be accepted as legal
>>everywhere in the US, and the North refused.
>
>That was not the cause of the War of Northern Aggression. Ever hear of
>the Tariff of Abominations? It had nothing to do with the issue of
>slavery, not even remotely.
Tariffs were certainly an issue of contention. But they aren't the
reason the South seceeded.
When South Carolina declared their reasons for seceeding, they listed
only two causes:
- The North's failure to abide by the fugutive slave laws.
- The anti-slavery agitation in the North.
http://shs.westport.k12.ct.us/jwb/Collab/HamJeff/CSA.htm
--
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS d- s+:++ a+ C+++$ UL+++ P--- L+++ E--- W-- N++ o-- K+++ w--- O@ M--
V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP t--- a-5 X-- R- tv b++++ DI++++ D++ G+ e++> h+
r* y*
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Moja
>> Have you read Hummel's book?
> What are Hummels historical credentials?
Jeffrey Rogers Hummell is Professor of History and Economics at Golden
Gate University.
I corresponded with him when I asked him for a personally autographed
hard cover copy of his book, and he told me that he has been studying
the history and economics of the Civil War era since he was a
teenager.
His book contains over 1,000 scholarly references, many which he
discusses in Bibliographical Essays that come after each chapter and
which constitute about half the page count.
He was also a tank commander in the US Army.
> Have you read Blackstone's?
Was he a tank commander in the British Army?
Moja
<johnas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> What are Hummels historical credentials?
>Have you looked at his. You can get his vita from him at
>http://www.sjsu.edu/welcome.html
Can you give the complete URL to the vita referenced above.
Moja
wrote:
>>Lincoln despised Negros to the extent that he would not allow the
>>repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act, only freed the slaves in the "rebel
>>territories" (over which he had no jurisdiction) with his
>>Emancipation Proclamation, forced California to repeal its earlier
>>version of the EP and did not free the slaves kept in the North. The
>>Confederate States of America eventually freed the slaveson its own,
>>whereas it took the 13th Amendment to free the slaves in the North,
>>well after Lincoln was dead.
>Seems to me you've been reading far too much revisionist history.
Which fact or facts above are you disputing?
Moja
wrote:
>>Talk about revisionist nonsense. The literature of the period does not
>>support the claim that the War was fought to abolish slavery. Indeed
>>slavery was an issue but it was not the cause of the War.
>The War began because of the North's determination to not let slavery
>be extended, into either the new territories or into the free states.
There are at least 1000 scholarly references which say you are wrong.
You have succumbed to the brainwashing of revisionist historians in
academia - the very ones who since the time of Reconstruction got
their grants from the federal govt.
Moja
wrote:
>>>>The issue was that the South insisted that slavery be accepted as legal
>>>>everywhere in the US, and the North refused.
>>>Then why did the northern Union states continue to have legal slavery
>>>even after the civil war until the passage of the 13th Amendment?
>>>Why did Grant own a slave?
>>Why did Lincoln refuse to repeal the Fugitive Slave Act at the
>>insistence of the abolitionists he depended on for re-election in
>>1864?
>Because the Constitution specifically requires that requires that fugitive
>slaves be returned.
Now you are saying that after having completely trashed the
Constitution, Lincoln is bound by its dictates.
That has to be so ludicrous that it causes uproarious laughter
throughout the entire Internet.
>>Why did his version of the EP only pertain to the "rebel territories",
>>over which he had no legitimate jurisdiction?
>The rebel territories were under martial law, and were the only ones in
>which he could make such a declaration.
The "rebel territories" had seceded from the Union, in case you
forgot. There was no martial law in the Confederate States of America
imposed by Lincoln. He did not have jurisdiction over the CSA. If he
had, then there would not have been any War.
Why don't you give it up - you are making a complete fool of yourself
among people who have taken the time to discover the truth about
Lincoln and the War.
Moja
>>For 30 years the North had imposed excessive tariffs on the South and
>>that was the cause of secession. The North realized that once the
>>South started importing cheap goods from overseas that it would flood
>>the North with these goods and that would bankrupt Northern industry.
>I've read some revisionist shite in my time on USENET but that truly takes
>the biscuit.
Do you have something substantive to contribute to this discussion?
For example, can you provide us with anything of substance that
disputes any of the facts stated above?
Do you know who John Calhoun and Henry Clay are? Did you ever hear of
the Morrell Tariff?
We gave you the titles of the books to read, now go read them and
report back to us about what you discovered. It might just be the
truth. Can you handle that?
Moja
<johnas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>I've read some revisionist shite in my time on USENET but that truly takes
>>the biscuit.
>Have you read Hummel? By the way he's professor at San Jose State
>University in San Jose, a university not know as a hot bed of Southern
>revisionism.
He is also a William C. Bark National Fellow at
the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.
Last time I heard, Stanford was not a hot bed of Southern revisionism
either.
For him to be associated with these institutions proves that his work
is being taken seriously.
Moja
wrote:
>>That was not the cause of the War of Northern Aggression. Ever hear of
>>the Tariff of Abominations? It had nothing to do with the issue of
>>slavery, not even remotely.
>Tariffs were certainly an issue of contention. But they aren't the
>reason the South seceeded.
>
>When South Carolina declared their reasons for seceeding, they listed
>only two causes:
>- The North's failure to abide by the fugutive slave laws.
>- The anti-slavery agitation in the North.
> http://shs.westport.k12.ct.us/jwb/Collab/HamJeff/CSA.htm
No one has said that slavery was not an issue. What we are claiming,
in concert with the authors previously cited, is that slavery was not
the cause of the War of Northern Aggression.
The main issue was sovereignty, which was supposed to be guaranteed in
the Bill of Rights (e.g., the Tenth Amendment), but which was being
significantly infringed by the federal govt for the past 30 years by
the imposition of excsssively high tariffs. The slavery issue was
indeed part of the sovereignty issue, but it was not the cause of the
War.
The catalyst for the War was the secession of the Southern states, and
that in turn was caused by the Tariff of Abominations and finally the
Morrell Tariff. Lincoln's election also played a big part in the
decision to secede because he had campaigned on a platform of high
tariffs to protect the fledgling industrial base primarily in the
North at the expense of Southern economic viability.
Let's make sure you understand our position. We are not saying that
slavery was not an issue - it was an important issue in terms of the
much larger issue of state sovereignty. But it was not the cause of
the War. The cause of the War was Southern secession which threatened
the economic viability of Northern industrial interests. Lincoln
started the War to prevent the Confederate States of America (CSA)
from importing cheap foreign goods and thereby wreck Northern
industry. The main reason the Southern states seceded was not the
slavery issue but the issue of economic sovereignty, in particular the
Tariff of Abominations and specifically the Morrell Tariff passed just
after Lincoln had been elected but before he took office. The North
initially accepted Southern secession and had cleared out all federal
presence in the South with the sole exception of one garrison of
federal troops at Fort Sumter in Charleston, South Caroilina, which
was the largest port in the CSA at the time. The troops were stationed
there to impose tariffs on goods imported into the South. The CSA
foolishly fired on Ft. Sumter (not injuring anyone) and Lincoln used
that as an excuse to start the War.
Moja
wrote:
>>Then why did the northern Union states continue to have legal slavery
>>even after the civil war until the passage of the 13th Amendment?
>Odd. I'm from Minnesota,
And I bet you voted for that commie loser, Mondale.
>and I don't remember slavery having been legal here.
You were alive during the Civil War era? You must be one old sumbitch.
>>Why did Grant own a slave?
>He didn't.
Odd you are - and also completely wrong.
-----
http://www.mscomm.com/~ulysses/page160.html
"Did Grant Own a Slave?
"Yes. For a brief period in 1858-9, Grant was the owner of a 35 year
old mulatto man named William Jones. Grant freed William Jones on
March 29, 1859."
-----
http://saints.css.edu/mkelsey/facts.html
"Grant himself owned a slave named William Jones, acquired from his
father-in-law."
-----
Do try not to be so odd.
Moja
wrote:
>>I didn't know New York was part of the Confederacy. Why can't you
>>face the fact that Lincoln was a power mad dictator who cared only for
>>expanding the power of the Federal government?
>Because it simply isn't true.
How would you know? You have been brainwashed by revisionist history
in the public schools.
Read the books cited earlier and report back to us about what you have
discovered. If you do not accept the scholarly works of these
historians, then we need to see your credentials.
A stupid kid playing with his mother's computer late at night can post
what you are posting.
shug
<jd...@jdege.visi.com> writes
>>>I'd suggest that you both give up on historians and read Lincolns speaches
>>>and letters.
>>
>>Have you read the books cited above?
You 2 are never going to get anwhere until you decide which is more
accurate - self-serving, self-written letters and speeches which say
what the author wants people to hear, not necessarily what he really
felt, or books written by historians who frequently have biases of their
own.
--
"People are smoking pot anyway and to make them into criminals is wrong.
It's when you're in jail you really become a criminal."
- Sir Paul McCartney, Independent on Sunday, 28th September 1997.
--
Shug
Buy your xmas gifts here
http://www.lcashop.co.uk or
http://www.oneposter.com/Index.asp?AID=340
and support the Legalise Cannabis Alliance.
Greg Hennessy
Ok Bawb, I'll bite.
>
>Do you know who John Calhoun and Henry Clay are? Did you ever hear of
>the Morrell Tariff?
That would be the Morrill Tariff,
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h975.html
Passed *two* days *BEFORE* Lincoln was inaugurated, and *AFTER* 7 states
has seceded. If you are going to rewrite history & blame Lincoln for
everything upto and including lame cattle out on the range, at least have
the common courtesy to indict him for something that he was *actually*
responsible for.
>
>We gave you the titles of the books to read, now go read them and
>report back to us about what you discovered. It might just be the
>truth. Can you handle that?
>
I'll take the truth where I find it. I wouldn't take Hummel as being
authoritative on any topic any more that I would Noam Chomsky just on the
basis of their comfortable sinecures @ Ivy League universities.
Fact: The majority of the US voting population at the time was north of the
Mason Dixon line.
Fact: The elected representatives acting on the wishes of that majority
werent prepared to see the extension of slavery to the new territories.
There was sound economic as well as social reasons for this. One cannot
have all the cheap immigrant labour being priced out of the market by
slavery. Westward migration was forced on those who did it mostly by
economic necessity. It wouldn't have happened if the new territories had
slavery.
Fact: The souths economy was pretty much a one trick pony based on exports
of slave harvested cotton to England.
Fact: The souths dependency on this made it extremely vulnerable,
especially when the inevitable UK cotton imports from the colonies came
online. If you assume the UK would have given confederate cotton preference
over that from India, then you are truly barking.
Fact: Free Trade based on the fruits of slave labour *isnt*. Given the
impact of temperance and other religious based social movements on public
policy within the UK. It would not have been inconceivable to envision
similar campaigns to outlaw the use of slavery produced raw materials
imported into the empire.
Fact: For whatever reason, successive govts decided that it was in the
interests of the majority to protect domestic producers behind tariff
walls. Not arguing the rights or wrongs of tariffs, that's politics.
However in its defence one would argue, that given the dependency the rest
of the empire had on sending raw materials and getting finished goods back
from the workshop of the world. To allow unfettered trade between the UK
and US would have made the US a dependent colony in everything but name and
would most likely have held back its economic development.
Moja
<spamc...@example.com> wrote:
>>Do you know who John Calhoun and Henry Clay are? Did you ever hear of
>>the Morrell Tariff?
>That would be the Morrill Tariff,
Thanks for correcting my typo.
>http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h975.html
>Passed *two* days *BEFORE* Lincoln was inaugurated, and *AFTER* 7 states
>has seceded.
The South had not finished secession at that stage.
>If you are going to rewrite history & blame Lincoln for
>everything upto and including lame cattle out on the range, at least have
>the common courtesy to indict him for something that he was *actually*
>responsible for.
If you are going to comment on the Morrill Tariff and its role in
causing secession or not, then you need to read Charles Adam's book,
"When in the Course of Human Events", where he makes the argument that
the Morrill Tariff was the last straw that caused the South to move to
completing secession.
>I'll take the truth where I find it. I wouldn't take Hummel as being
>authoritative on any topic any more that I would Noam Chomsky just on the
>basis of their comfortable sinecures @ Ivy League universities.
Don't take Hummel's word alone - study the voluminous bibliography he
provides. And do read the other 3 books we cited earlier.
So what is it you conclude from all this seemingly irrelevant
commentary?
The fact of reality is that Lincoln did not start the War to abolish
slavery. He did not care about slaves. He even went so far as to
promise in his campaign that he would not even attempt to abolish
slavery.
The fact of reality is that he did nothing to abolish slavery once the
War was underway. He refused to repeal the Fugitive Slave Act at the
insistence of abolitionists whose vote he required to stay in office,
he allowed the keeping of slaves in the North during the War, he
forced California to repeal its version of the Emanicpation
Proclamation because he was afraid that it would spread to other
Northern states, his version of the EP applied only to the "rebel
territories" where he had no legitimate jurisdiction, etc.
And on top of it all, there was no way that literally millions of
Union soldiers were going to face being killed or maimed in a war over
the abolition of slavery. If the vast majority of people in the North,
the very ones who supplied manpower to the Union Army, had felt that
passionate about slavery, they would have forced the federal govt to
abolish it before the War.
The fact is that although slavery was an issue in terms of state
sovereignty, it was not the issue which caused the War.
John A. Stovall
wrote:
>In message <slrnaugecm...@jdege.visi.com>, Jeffrey C. Dege
><jd...@jdege.visi.com> writes
>>>>I'd suggest that you both give up on historians and read Lincolns speaches
>>>>and letters.
>>>
>>>Have you read the books cited above?
>
>You 2 are never going to get anwhere until you decide which is more
>accurate - self-serving, self-written letters and speeches which say
>what the author wants people to hear, not necessarily what he really
>felt, or books written by historians who frequently have biases of their
>own.
Books written by historian with biases of course. They provide a
broader field of discourse from which one can draw one's own
conclusions by an examination of their sources. Don't you understand
histography?
*****************************************************
Let boys want pleasure, and men
Struggle for power, and women perhaps for fame,
And the servile to serve a Leader and the dupes
to be duped.
Yours is not theirs.
"Be Angry at the Sun"
Robinson Jeffers
John A. Stovall
>On 30 Nov 2002 03:55:44 GMT, jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C. Dege)
>wrote:
>
>>>Then why did the northern Union states continue to have legal slavery
>>>even after the civil war until the passage of the 13th Amendment?
>
>>Odd. I'm from Minnesota,
>
>And I bet you voted for that commie loser, Mondale.
>
>>and I don't remember slavery having been legal here.
>
>You were alive during the Civil War era? You must be one old sumbitch.
>
>>>Why did Grant own a slave?
>
>>He didn't.
>
>Odd you are - and also completely wrong.
>
Grant was the owner of a 35 year old mulatto man named William Jones
from 1858-1859.
http://www.mscomm.com/~ulysses/page160.html
His wife continued to own slaves given to her by her father and owned
in her name up until December, 1865.
Mr. Dege doesn't want to be confused with facts.
Moja
wrote:
>>>>I'd suggest that you both give up on historians and read Lincolns speaches
>>>>and letters.
>>>Have you read the books cited above?
>You 2 are never going to get anwhere until you decide which is more
>accurate - self-serving, self-written letters and speeches which say
>what the author wants people to hear, not necessarily what he really
>felt, or books written by historians who frequently have biases of their
>own.
Hummel and the other historians we cited all provide extensive
bibliographical material for you to decide what the truth is. Their
contribution is to expose the facts as they happened in reality.
How can anyone claim that Lincoln started the War to abolish slavery
when he would not even repeal the Fugitive Slave Act, when he allowed
the North to keep slaves throughout the War, when he forced California
to repeal its version of the Emancipation Proclamation, when his
version of the EP only applied to the "rebel territories" over which
he had no legitimate jurisdiction?
How can anyone claim that literally millions of Northerners subjected
themselves to the ravages of one of the most bloody wars in history to
free a bunch of slaves who did not even want to be freed - or else
they would have revolted in sufficient number to overburden the
economics of slave holding like they did everywhere else in the
Western Hemisphere?
The facts all point to the realization that the War was not fought
over the abolition of slavery. In fact slavery had only a peripheral
impact, being part of the state sovereignty issue.
The War was started by Lincoln because he had no other choice. If he
had permitted the South to import cheap foreign goods, they would have
threatened Northern industrial interests to the point of bankruptcy,
and then the nation would have been vulnerable to hostile foreign
interests - like all those impoverished countries in Africa today.
As much as the War was a complete and utter travesty, it was a
necessity. Although the prohibitive tariffs, which caused the South to
secede and thereby cause the North to start the War, were a complete
and utter travesty, they were a necessity. Henry Clay and John Calhoun
argued in Congress for 30 years over the Tariff of Abominations.
Calhoun wrote an anonymous treatise on the "Compact Theory" which he
used to justify secession. He was later outted and it created a furor
because he also served as Vice President of the United States.
Yet with all this deliberation over all these years by all these
dedicated statesmen, no one could find a solution to the problem of
protecting Northern industrial interests at their most vulnerable
moment. Britain was sitting in lurch licking its chops just waiting
for the North to collapse. In fact Britain supplied the CSA with
warships out of Portsmouth to run the Northern blockades.
Britain wanted far more than cotton - it wanted to get its hooks into
America once again. It never gave up until after the War decided once
and for all that America would stand united against all foreign
interests.
Did you know that Britain was negotiating with the Texians (as they
were called back then) before Texas joined the Union? Britain wanted
to form a political alliance, thereby getting a foothold in America
once again. Andrew Jackson, hero of the Battle of New Orleans which
ended the War of 1812, despised the British and he sent his Tennessee
friend, Sam Houston, to Texas to find a way to get it to join the
Union. Houston found a way - he ran up impossible debt loads so that
Texas had to join in order to get out of from under a crushing debt.
It was either that or bankruptcy, and the latter would have turned it
into a third-world country too.
John A. Stovall
>On Sat, 30 Nov 2002 00:13:27 GMT, John A. Stovall
><johnas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>> What are Hummels historical credentials?
>
>>Have you looked at his. You can get his vita from him at
>
>>http://www.sjsu.edu/welcome.html
>
>Can you give the complete URL to the vita referenced above.
You will need to email him for that.
John A. Stovall
>On Fri, 29 Nov 2002 17:25:15 -0500, "M. Eglestone"
><sms...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>> Have you read Hummel's book?
>
>> What are Hummels historical credentials?
>
>Jeffrey Rogers Hummell is Professor of History and Economics at Golden
>Gate University.
No he's moved to San Jose State.
>
>I corresponded with him when I asked him for a personally autographed
>hard cover copy of his book, and he told me that he has been studying
>the history and economics of the Civil War era since he was a
>teenager.
>
>His book contains over 1,000 scholarly references, many which he
>discusses in Bibliographical Essays that come after each chapter and
>which constitute about half the page count.
>
>He was also a tank commander in the US Army.
>
>> Have you read Blackstone's?
>
>Was he a tank commander in the British Army?
I must assume he's referring to Sir William Blackstone, author of
’Commentaries on the Laws of England’.
http://www.berkshirehistory.com/bios/wblackstone.html
Unless he so confused he thinks Blackstone (Audio Books) is the true
author of Paul Johnson's _History of the English People_.
******************************************************
"Ancient Right unnoticed as the breath we draw--
Leave to live by no man's leave, underneath the Law--
Land and torn and tumult, steel and grey-goose wing,
Wrenched it, inch and ell and all, slowly from the King.
"The Old Issue"
Rudyard Kipling
JHBennett
"Moja" <moja...@mojaspam.cum> wrote in message
news:3de7dc7d...@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> On 29 Nov 2002 15:46:45 GMT, jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C. Dege)
> wrote:
>
> >>Would that be the same public schools that taught generation after
> >>generation that Lincoln prosecuted the War of Northern Aggression to
> >>free the slaves?
>
> >>That is undoubtedly the Biggest Lie ever perpetrated on the entire
> >>world.
>
> >And the claim that the war wasn't fought over slavery is revisionsist
> >nonsense.
>
> >Read the debates, the newspaper editorials, the campaigns, etc., of the
> >period between Dredd Scott and the succession.
>
> >The primary issue was slavery, and there's no question about it. The
> >South demanded that slavery be accepted everywhere and the North refused.
>
> support the claim that the War was fought to abolish slavery. Indeed
Oh yes, we all know it was about state's rights--the right of the southern
states to keep slaves, upon which the economy of the South was
ependent. --JB
>
> >Again, revisionist nonsense. Everyone knew the Japanese were planning
> >an attack, but the idea that anyone in the US expected an attack at
> >Pearl is fantasy.
>
> Talk about revisionist nonsense. Why did FDR order the military to
> dismantle the long-range radar and the code breaking machines at Pearl
> Harbor?
This, of course, would be the radar which reported the approach of the
Japanese planes to operations, where it was mistaken for an expected flight
of B-17's from the US. Naturally, FDR had the people who ignored his order
shot. Their bodies weighted down with those code machines--which
miraculously continued to function to the end of the war--and they were
dumped at sea. --JB
>
> >Similarly, there were many who were aware of the dangers that Al Quaida
> >represented, but the idea that anyone had any specific knowledge of what
> >they were planning is again a fantasy.
>
> It is fantasy to claim that the world intelligence community did not
> know well in advance the details of the 911 attack.
And you have just established yourself as a raving lunatic, as rational as a
drunk (with apologies to many good natured drunks), and a total waste of
time.
Sometime you must entertain us, with your tale of the conspiracy to kill
Kennedy. Any Kennedy.
Regards,
Jack B *USA*
>
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Jeffrey C. Dege
>On 30 Nov 2002 04:03:16 GMT, jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C. Dege)
>wrote:
>
>>>Talk about revisionist nonsense. The literature of the period does not
>>>support the claim that the War was fought to abolish slavery. Indeed
>>>slavery was an issue but it was not the cause of the War.
>
>>The War began because of the North's determination to not let slavery
>>be extended, into either the new territories or into the free states.
>
>There are at least 1000 scholarly references which say you are wrong.
Unfortunately, the historical record of why Lincoln returned to politics,
what motivated the Republican Party, etc., is clear.
I've posted South Carolina's Declaration on the Causes - and it's
complaints are _only_ that the North wouldn't enforce the fugitive slave
laws, allowed anti-slavery groups to operate, and had elected a party
opposed to the expansion of slavery.
--
In truth, one who believes it wrong to arm himself against criminal
violence shows contempt of God's gift of life (or, in modern parlance,
does not properly value himself), does not live up to his responsibilities
to his family and community, and proclaims himself mentally and morally
deficient, because he does not trust himself to behave responsibly. In
truth, a state that deprives its law-abiding citizens of the means
to effectively defend themselves is not civilized but barbarous,
becoming an accomplice of murderers, rapists, and thugs and revealing
its totalitarian nature by its tacit admission that the disorganized,
random havoc created by criminals is far less a threat than are men and
women who believe themselves free and independent, and act accordingly.
- Jeffrey Snyder, "Nation of Cowards"
Jeffrey C. Dege
>On 30 Nov 2002 04:23:32 GMT, jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C. Dege)
>wrote:
>
>>>That was not the cause of the War of Northern Aggression. Ever hear of
>>>the Tariff of Abominations? It had nothing to do with the issue of
>>>slavery, not even remotely.
>
>>Tariffs were certainly an issue of contention. But they aren't the
>>reason the South seceeded.
>>
>>When South Carolina declared their reasons for seceeding, they listed
>>only two causes:
>
>>- The North's failure to abide by the fugutive slave laws.
>>- The anti-slavery agitation in the North.
>
>> http://shs.westport.k12.ct.us/jwb/Collab/HamJeff/CSA.htm
>
>No one has said that slavery was not an issue. What we are claiming,
>in concert with the authors previously cited, is that slavery was not
>the cause of the War of Northern Aggression.
If there were other causes, why did the secessionists not list them in
their declaration of causes?
--
If there is anything the nonconformist hates worse than a conformist it's
another nonconformist who doesn't conform to the prevailing standards
of nonconformity.
- Bill Vaughan
Jeffrey C. Dege
>On 30 Nov 2002 03:55:44 GMT, jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C. Dege)
>wrote:
>
>>>Then why did the northern Union states continue to have legal slavery
>>>even after the civil war until the passage of the 13th Amendment?
>
>>Odd. I'm from Minnesota,
>
>And I bet you voted for that commie loser, Mondale.
Then you don't know much.
>>and I don't remember slavery having been legal here.
>
>You were alive during the Civil War era? You must be one old sumbitch.
>
>>>Why did Grant own a slave?
>
>>He didn't.
>
>Odd you are - and also completely wrong.
>
>-----
>http://www.mscomm.com/~ulysses/page160.html
>
>"Did Grant Own a Slave?
>
>"Yes. For a brief period in 1858-9, Grant was the owner of a 35 year
>old mulatto man named William Jones. Grant freed William Jones on
>March 29, 1859."
>-----
>http://saints.css.edu/mkelsey/facts.html
>
>"Grant himself owned a slave named William Jones, acquired from his
>father-in-law."
Read the entire page.
Grant's father was an abolitionists, his wife's family owned slaves.
His father in law gave a slave to Grant and his wife, and Grant freed him.
Jeffrey C. Dege
>On 30 Nov 2002 04:01:01 GMT, jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C. Dege)
>wrote:
>
>>>I didn't know New York was part of the Confederacy. Why can't you
>>>face the fact that Lincoln was a power mad dictator who cared only for
>>>expanding the power of the Federal government?
>
>>Because it simply isn't true.
>
>How would you know? You have been brainwashed by revisionist history
>in the public schools.
Because I've read a great deal of what Lincoln wrote.
--
Never worry about theory as long as the machinery does what it's
supposed to do.
-- R. A. Heinlein
Moja
<johnas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>Have you looked at his. You can get his vita from him at
>>>http://www.sjsu.edu/welcome.html
>>Can you give the complete URL to the vita referenced above.
>You will need to email him for that.
I finally found one:
http://www.libertyhaven.com/biographies/hummel.html
He is also a Hoover Fellow at Stanford.
I was not aware that he left Golden Gate for San Jose State. Do you
know what caused that? I had heard that he was unable to get anywhere
at Golden Gate. But at least he was tenured. I wonder why they made
him an assistant professor at SJSU?
I also wonder what the credentials are for those who dare to impeach
him. Probably the usual kids fooling around with their mother's
computer late at night.
Moja
<johnas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>Jeffrey Rogers Hummell is Professor of History and Economics at Golden
>>Gate University.
>No he's moved to San Jose State.
Yes, as I mentioned in the previous post, I discovered that after
having posted the above message.
Apparently it was rather recent too.
Moja
wrote:
>Oh yes, we all know it was about state's rights--the right of the southern
>states to keep slaves, upon which the economy of the South was
>dependent. --JB
If the slaves did not like their way of life why didn't they revolt
and become free like all the other slaves in the Western Hemisphere?
It was the North that perpetuated slavery by forcing the South to
remain a predominantly agricultural region. If they North had not
imposed exhorbitant tariffs to protect Northern industrial interests,
the South would have been able to engage in foreign trade which would
have ushered in the Industrial Revolution thereby making slavery too
expensive and eventually obsolete.
>> It is fantasy to claim that the world intelligence community did not
>> know well in advance the details of the 911 attack.
>And you have just established yourself as a raving lunatic, as rational as a
>drunk (with apologies to many good natured drunks), and a total waste of
>time.
> Sometime you must entertain us, with your tale of the conspiracy to kill
>Kennedy. Any Kennedy.
You are a bloody fool.
John A. Stovall
>On Sat, 30 Nov 2002 15:08:09 GMT, John A. Stovall
><johnas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>>>Have you looked at his. You can get his vita from him at
>
>>>>http://www.sjsu.edu/welcome.html
>
>>>Can you give the complete URL to the vita referenced above.
>
>>You will need to email him for that.
>
>I finally found one:
>
>http://www.libertyhaven.com/biographies/hummel.html
>
>He is also a Hoover Fellow at Stanford.
>
>I was not aware that he left Golden Gate for San Jose State. Do you
>know what caused that? I had heard that he was unable to get anywhere
>at Golden Gate. But at least he was tenured. I wonder why they made
>him an assistant professor at SJSU?
Having spent many years in the groves of Academia, I would suspect it
was to facilitate his association with Stanford which is just down the
road from San Jose at Palo Alto. Such arrangements are not uncommon
and tenure goes with the transfer.
He is also associated now with the Institute for Humane Studies, at
George Mason University and we all know Walter Williams in it's
economic department.
http://www.theihs.org/people.php/75936.html
For those who don't know who Walter Williams is:
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/
Moja
wrote:
>I've posted South Carolina's Declaration on the Causes - and it's
>complaints are _only_ that the North wouldn't enforce the fugitive slave
>laws, allowed anti-slavery groups to operate, and had elected a party
>opposed to the expansion of slavery.
So what? Are you saying that a complex subject such as this can be so
easily decided by reading one declaration of secession?
>In truth, one who believes it wrong to arm himself against criminal
>violence shows contempt of God's gift of life (or, in modern parlance,
>does not properly value himself), does not live up to his responsibilities
>to his family and community, and proclaims himself mentally and morally
>deficient, because he does not trust himself to behave responsibly. In
>truth, a state that deprives its law-abiding citizens of the means
>to effectively defend themselves is not civilized but barbarous,
>becoming an accomplice of murderers, rapists, and thugs and revealing
>its totalitarian nature by its tacit admission that the disorganized,
>random havoc created by criminals is far less a threat than are men and
>women who believe themselves free and independent, and act accordingly.
> - Jeffrey Snyder, "Nation of Cowards"
At least we fully agree on that. For those interested in reading the
full text of this classic article:
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/cowards.htm
I'll see your Jeffrey Snyder quote and raise you a John Locke quote:
"A ruler who violates natural law is illegitimate. He has no right to
be obeyed, his commands are mere force and coercion. Rulers who act
lawlessly, whose laws are unlawful, are mere criminals, and should be
dealt with in accordance with natural law, as applied in a state of
nature, in other words they and their servants should be killed as the
opportunity presents, like the dangerous animals that they are, the
common enemies of all mankind."
--John Locke
Moja
wrote:
>If there were other causes, why did the secessionists not list them in
>their declaration of causes?
That is a legitimate question and I do not have the answer.
No one I have read discusses that. But I do not base my claims about
the causes of the War on the declaration of causes for secession. BTW,
Texas also has such references to slavery in its articles of secession
yet Texas was not a big slave state nor was it a big participant in
the War, at least in terms of battlefield territory. It's as though
the states merely copied one template document when they wrote their
articles of secession.
The fact is that Lincoln started the War not to abolish slavery. He
started it because the South had every intention to import cheap
foreign goods, and that would have bankrupted the Northern industrial
complex, making the Union vulnerable to foreign infiltration. Lincoln
and the Northern industrial interests had no other recourse but to
start a war to prevent the South from destroying their industries.
The real blame falls on Henry Clay's failure to secure a compromise
solution that was acceptable to both the North and the South during
the approx. 30 year period from enactment of the Tariff of
Abominations to Southern secession.
As usual greed and power ruled the day, and I am sure you will agree
that those are two of the most important ingredients for war.
Moja
wrote:
>>And I bet you voted for that commie loser, Mondale.
>Then you don't know much.
Good to hear that at least one person from Minnesota had enough sense
not to vote for that commie bastard.
Did you vote for Jesse? I would have if I had the chance. He is one
kick-ass dude. I loved his badges for the press.
>Read the entire page.
>Grant's father was an abolitionist, his wife's family owned slaves.
>His father in law gave a slave to Grant and his wife, and Grant freed him.
Yes, but he nevertheless did own the slave for a period. Otherwise he
did not have had the authority to free him.
That's all Stovall and I claimed. You read too much into what we
claimed.
Moja
wrote:
>>How would you know? You have been brainwashed by revisionist history
>>in the public schools.
>Because I've read a great deal of what Lincoln wrote.
Lincoln was said to have been influenced greatly by Salmon Chase, who
represented the Northern industrial interests. But that does not
excuse him from abusing the power of his office.
Did you read the part about how Lincoln issued a warrant for the
arrest of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Roger Taney, because
Taney declared Lincoln out of order for taking over congress?
What did the Great Enslaver have to say for himself then?
Clive Taylor
shaun....@spaajnvlcfjymmngdomtmmmam.ntlworld.com (Shaun) wrote:
>On Fri, 29 Nov 2002 01:46:25 -0000, "Mick Tilley"
><mickt...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Shaun" <shaun....@spaajnvlcfjymmngdomtmmmam.ntlworld.com> wrote in
>>message news:3de6c20d...@newscache.cable.ntlworld.com...
>>> On Thu, 28 Nov 2002 20:23:19 +0000 (UTC), "Dr Ivan D. Reid"
>>> <Ivan...@brunel.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Thu, 28 Nov 2002 17:46:29 -0000, Wotan <wo...@valhalla.net>
>>> > wrote in <3de6560a$0$4786$fa0f...@lovejoy.zen.co.uk>:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> Yes they do. It is a right guaranteed under our constitution which
>>> >> is contained in the Magna Carta and Bill of Rights.
>>> >
>>> > Is "our" constitution available on-line anywhere? I must admit
>>> >I've never read it.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Neither have the gun nuts.
>>>
>>> Key phrases about "Catholics" and "as allowed by law" disappear
>>> whenever they quote it
>>>
>>
>>Article 7. That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their
>>Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.
>>
>>James II never disarmed the Catholics in the first place, therefore it was
>>only the Protestants who needed to assert the right. "Allowed by law"
>>referred to English Common Law, which clearly permitted the possession of
>>arms by all. (See Blackstone's Commentaries inter alia.)
>>
>So you've never read the bit reminding the reader that Papists
>weren't allowed arms and the authors were pissed off James II let
>them have them ?
>
Do you have difficulty in reading a post or do you have selective
eyesight - James II never disarmed the Catholics in the first place,
therefore it was only the Protestants who needed to assert the right.
>or the phase:
>
>"That the subjects which are protestants, may have arms for their
>defence suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law."
>
>Which kinda contradicts your assertion on Common law.
>
>>By the way, do you remember your contention that "only one or two well-to-do
>>people" possessed firearms in England in years gone by.
>
>Er no, because you made that quote up and put in my mouth to try and
>make your argument sound more convincing.
>
Good grief, lttle white feather, your memory is selective as well as
your eyesight. I have lost count of the times you have claimed that
shooting is exclusively the pursuit of the rich as the no-one else
could afford firearms.
>>Well cop this lot
>>
>>Firearms surrendered in England and Wales under amnesties since 1933
>>1933 16,409
>>
>>1935 8,469
>>
>>1937 14,000
>>
>>1946 76,000
>>
>>1961 70,000
>>
>>1965 41,000
>>
>>1968 25,088
>>
>>1988 42,725
>>
>>Total 293691
>>
>Wow, thats over 0.1% of a gun for everyone whos been alive since 1933.
>Firearms must be as common as muck
>
>
>>These figures exclude rounds of ammunition surrendered (795,000 in 1968; 1.5
>>million in 1988), other "offensive weapons" (4,280 in 1988), and the
>>substantial numbers of firearms handed in other than during amnesties;
>>58,006 firearms were handed to the Metropolitan Police alone from 1946 to
>>1969, for instance. In the 1965 amnesty a man in Royston, Hertfordshire,
>>handed over an anti-tank gun, four service rifles, 12,000 rounds of
>>ammunition, several live grenades and three booby traps. In 1988 a man in
>>Windsor surrendered 88 boxes of ammunition, three machine-guns (one with
>>tripod), four rifles, three revolvers, a flare pistol and an anti-aircraft
>>gun.
>
>Now is that because they were war relics hidden in barn and forgotten
>about or did the owners decide they were too busy to start the
>revolution and needed more space in the attic ?
>
Do you KNOW that they were?
>> Now tell us again, "only one or two well-to-do people in England owned
>>firearms".
>
>That would be difficult as I never told you that in the first place
>
See above, littl;e white feather and maybe a trip to the archives
might do you some good.
>>Phew! What a relief the poor people didn't have any, eh? That
>>would have been really frightening!
>
>All those pictures of Home Guard units armed with kitchen knifes on
>broom handles are all fakes then
Your point being?
Jeffrey C. Dege
>On 30 Nov 2002 15:59:14 GMT, jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C. Dege)
>wrote:
>
>>I've posted South Carolina's Declaration on the Causes - and it's
>>complaints are _only_ that the North wouldn't enforce the fugitive slave
>>laws, allowed anti-slavery groups to operate, and had elected a party
>>opposed to the expansion of slavery.
>
>So what? Are you saying that a complex subject such as this can be so
>easily decided by reading one declaration of secession?
I'm saying that if a state seceeds, and publishes a declaration of why
they seceeded, it's a reasonable presumption that they would include in
that declaration, the most important of their reasons.
And that to claim that the reasons they listed were not the most important
reasons, but that instead the most important were reasons that they
never mentioned, is hubris of the worst kind.
Yes, I know that historians get paid for finding new twists for old data,
but that doesn't mean that all of the new twists are truly valid.
When it comes down to judging who is better placed to judge the causes
of the rebellion, some modern historian, or the rebels themselves,
I will give more weight to the rebels.
--
Politician, n.:
An eel in the fundamental mud upon which the superstructure of
organized society is reared. When he wriggles, he mistakes the
agitation of his tail for the trembling of the edifice. As compared
with the statesman, he suffers the disadvantage of being alive.
-- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Jeffrey C. Dege
>>violence shows contempt of God's gift of life (or, in modern parlance,
>>does not properly value himself), does not live up to his responsibilities
>>to his family and community, and proclaims himself mentally and morally
>>deficient, because he does not trust himself to behave responsibly. In
>>truth, a state that deprives its law-abiding citizens of the means
>>to effectively defend themselves is not civilized but barbarous,
>>becoming an accomplice of murderers, rapists, and thugs and revealing
>>its totalitarian nature by its tacit admission that the disorganized,
>>random havoc created by criminals is far less a threat than are men and
>>women who believe themselves free and independent, and act accordingly.
>> - Jeffrey Snyder, "Nation of Cowards"
>
>At least we fully agree on that. For those interested in reading the
>full text of this classic article:
>
>http://www.jim.com/jamesd/cowards.htm
If you don't have the book, get it.
>I'll see your Jeffrey Snyder quote and raise you a John Locke quote:
>
>"A ruler who violates natural law is illegitimate. He has no right to
>be obeyed, his commands are mere force and coercion. Rulers who act
>lawlessly, whose laws are unlawful, are mere criminals, and should be
>dealt with in accordance with natural law, as applied in a state of
>nature, in other words they and their servants should be killed as the
>opportunity presents, like the dangerous animals that they are, the
>common enemies of all mankind."
>--John Locke
All the great governments of the world---those now existing, as well
as those that have passed away---have been of this character. They have
been mere bands of robbers, who have associated for purposes of plunder,
conquest, and the enslavement of their fellow men. And their laws, as
they have called them, have been only such agreements as they have found
it necessary to enter into, in order to maintain their organizations,
and act together in plundering and enslaving others, and in securing to
each his agreed share of the spoils.
All these laws have had no more real obligation than have the agreements
which brigands, bandits, and pirates find it necessary to enter into
with each other, for the more successful accomplishment of their crimes,
and the more peaceable division of their spoils.
- Lysander Spooner, "Natural Law"
>"If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit
>the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to
>limit those guarantees."
>-- Bill Clinton, The Impeached Traitor of America
Want to understand why politicians do what they do? Simple: when you're
a big, gray, greasy rat, walking around on two hind legs, you have a
lot to gain by turning the world into a garbage heap.
-- Memoirs of Lucille G. Kropotkin
--
The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old
parchments or musty records. They are written as with a sunbeam in the
whole volume of human nature by the hand of Divinity itself, and can
never be erased or obscured by mortal power.
- Alexander Hamilton
Jeffrey C. Dege
>
>The fact is that Lincoln started the War not to abolish slavery.
Lincoln didn't start the war.
--
We must remember that law is force, and that, consequently, the proper
functions of the law cannot morally extend beyond the proper functions
of force.
- Frederic Bastiat
Jeffrey C. Dege
>On 30 Nov 2002 16:08:31 GMT, jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C. Dege)
>wrote:
>
>>>And I bet you voted for that commie loser, Mondale.
>
>>Then you don't know much.
>
>Good to hear that at least one person from Minnesota had enough sense
>not to vote for that commie bastard.
I voted for Norm - but not with a great deal of enthusiasm. He's a vote
for a Republican Senate leadership, but not much more. (If he'd run
for governor, I'd have fought him every step of the way - we're _this_
close to shall-issue carry, in Minnesota, and if we're going to have an
anti-gun governor, I'd rather he be a Democrat.)
>Did you vote for Jesse? I would have if I had the chance. He is one
>kick-ass dude. I loved his badges for the press.
Jesse is a pompous gas-bag. He mouthed off the right-sounding noises,
then appointed a bunch of retread "third-way" Democrats to his staff,
and let them run things while he sat on the couch drinking beer and
watching the game.
FACE
uk.politics.guns wrote:
>On Sat, 30 Nov 2002 17:34:57 GMT, Moja <moja...@mojaspam.cum> wrote:
>>
>>The fact is that Lincoln started the War not to abolish slavery.
>
>Lincoln didn't start the war.
If Lincoln had not maintained an armed fortress (Ft. Sumter) in a foreign land
would there have been a shooting war?
Er.....I don't know either.
FACE
Randy Sweeney
"FACE" <AFaceIn...@today.net> wrote in message
> If Lincoln had not maintained an armed fortress (Ft. Sumter) in a foreign
land
> would there have been a shooting war?
According to the National Park Service museum at Ft Sumter, the immediate
cause for the SC militia attack upon the fort was that the garrison troops
at Ft. Sumter were observed moving the heavy cannon there from their
original positions facing the channel to new positions set for bombardment
of the civilian areas of Charlestown.
Photographs of the fort when it fell do indeed show the newly prepared
positions of cannon for shelling the city of Charlestown.
JHBennett
"Moja" <moja...@mojaspam.cum> wrote in message
> On Sat, 30 Nov 2002 09:37:36 -0600, "JHBennett" <Ben...@mvn.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Oh yes, we all know it was about state's rights--the right of the
southern
> >states to keep slaves, upon which the economy of the South was
> >dependent. --JB
>
> If the slaves did not like their way of life why didn't they revolt
> and become free like all the other slaves in the Western Hemisphere?
>
> It was the North that perpetuated slavery by forcing the South to
> remain a predominantly agricultural region. If they North had not
> imposed exhorbitant tariffs to protect Northern industrial interests,
> the South would have been able to engage in foreign trade which would
> have ushered in the Industrial Revolution thereby making slavery too
> expensive and eventually obsolete.
What a hoot! Next I suppose you'll be telling us all about how Hitler was
very good to the Jews, who's lack of gratitude for the free food and
housing, provided by the benevolent Nazi's, resulted in that whole thing of
WWII. There never were death camps, the Nazi's didn't use slave labor,
didn't perform experiments on people, didn't murder over 15 million (in
death camps alone), etc. etc. Oh yes, and masters were very good to their
slaves, weren't they. How about if I promise to be real good to you, and
you'll not miss your freedom, will you? --JB
>
> >> It is fantasy to claim that the world intelligence community did not
> >> know well in advance the details of the 911 attack.
>
> >And you have just established yourself as a raving lunatic, as rational
as a
> >drunk (with apologies to many good natured drunks), and a total waste of
> >time.
>
> > Sometime you must entertain us, with your tale of the conspiracy to
kill
> >Kennedy. Any Kennedy.
>
> You are a bloody fool.
>
Thank you. My greatest fear is that a joke like you might inadvertently
think I agree with one word of the tripe you spout so voluminously. You are
a crazed fanatic who spares no effort in finding other of the lunatic fringe
who will support your warped views, or distort the work and words of others
to your purpose. If Lincoln and the North really did enslave the South, why
you ought to be ecstaticly euphorias about it. Look what was done for you,
you ungrateful nitwit.
Do try and find a subjet where you're less of a national embarrassment,
please.
JHBennett
Well, there we have it. If the US had not provoked al Qaida by having the
Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and the White House, there never would have been
an attack on Sept 11. Bet there are some pretty women about who are just
asking for it, too.
Cheers,
JHBennett
Both are likely Libertarians, and the frightening thing about that is there
are others out there who are just as crackers. Bet they have been taken
aboard the space ships too.
shug
<johnas...@earthlink.net> writes
>On Sat, 30 Nov 2002 12:15:50 +0000, shug <sh...@spamme.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <slrnaugecm...@jdege.visi.com>, Jeffrey C. Dege
>><jd...@jdege.visi.com> writes
>>>>>I'd suggest that you both give up on historians and read Lincolns speaches
>>>>>and letters.
>>>>
>>>>Have you read the books cited above?
>>
>>You 2 are never going to get anwhere until you decide which is more
>>accurate - self-serving, self-written letters and speeches which say
>>what the author wants people to hear, not necessarily what he really
>>felt, or books written by historians who frequently have biases of their
>>own.
>
>Books written by historian with biases of course. They provide a
>broader field of discourse from which one can draw one's own
>conclusions by an examination of their sources. Don't you understand
>histography?
Yes, I understand. That's why I brought it up. I know that you can read
all the speeches and letters and you still only get the story from one
person's viewpoint whereas reading a broad range of authors is much more
likely to provide a better understanding of one's subject.
If you saw my library you would know
--
"...I.Q.'s of Zion Coptics increased after they began to use ganga"
- Schaeffer: 'A Neuropsychological Evaluation; A Case History'
--
Shug
Buy your xmas gifts here
http://www.lcashop.co.uk or
http://www.oneposter.com/Index.asp?AID=340
and support the Legalise Cannabis Alliance.
David Lentz
FACE wrote:
<snip>
> If Lincoln had not maintained an armed fortress (Ft. Sumter) in a foreign land
> would there have been a shooting war?
>
> Er.....I don't know either.
>
> FACE
In what sense, if any, was Fort Sumter in a foreign land? Please
be specific.
President Abraham Lincoln did not have the practical authority to
call out troops to oppose the secession. The South would have
been able to leave in peace, if only they had been able.
However, the attack on Fort Sumter turned a secession into a
armed rebellion. Lincoln had all the authority he needed to put
down an armed rebellion. The immediately after Sumter Lincoln
issued a call for fifty thousand volunteers and he got them.
Prior to Sumter the call would have gone unheeded.
David
--
qyra...@ebpurfgre.ee.pbz
M. Eglestone
>
> And I bet you voted for that commie loser, Mondale.
Moja, my friend, with the statement above you just removed ANY doubt from
my mind that you are some kind of flaky nut case. You and your Civil War
Revisionism are now on my disregard list. When you get a bit older, and
learn the truth about life and history, try it again. Until then you still
have a lot of growing up to do...
- PLONK -
--
- SMS Mike - (U.S. Air Force, Retired)
============
"After a well publicized shooting spree, why do they always want to take
the guns away from the people who didn't do it?"
--
Moja
<johnas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>He is also associated now with the Institute for Humane Studies, at
>George Mason University
A prominent Negro institution of higher learning.
>and we all know Walter Williams in it's
>economic department.
>For those who don't know who Walter Williams is:
>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/
I wonder if it would be considered racist to the British if I point
that Williams is one of the most articulate Negro Conservative
economists on the contemporary scene. He ranks along with another
Negro Conservative, Alan Keyes. To hear either of them on the radio
you would never guess they are Negros, proving that race has nothing
to do with politics in reality.
How Wiliiams can stand to live in Harlot Washington is beyond me. But
then how Hummel can stand to live in the Queer Bay Area on the Left
Coast is beyond me too. They are like missionaries in an aboriginal
village.
Moja
wrote:
>I'm saying that if a state seceeds, and publishes a declaration of why
>they seceeded, it's a reasonable presumption that they would include in
>that declaration, the most important of their reasons.
My point is that whatever the stated reasons for a given state's
secession, the War was not started by Lincoln to abolish slavery. The
reasons for secession and the reasons for starting the War are two
completely separate set of issues.
>And that to claim that the reasons they listed were not the most important
>reasons, but that instead the most important were reasons that they
>never mentioned, is hubris of the worst kind.
Oh, cut it out. You know better than that - or you should. People give
all sorts of reasons why they do things but that does not mean that
they are their real motives.
>Yes, I know that historians get paid for finding new twists for old data,
>but that doesn't mean that all of the new twists are truly valid.
I have not attempted to appeal to the authority of the writers we
cited. They are cited so that you will have the same basic references
we have. If you don't read them, you will never be able to see the
truth.
>When it comes down to judging who is better placed to judge the causes
>of the rebellion, some modern historian, or the rebels themselves,
>I will give more weight to the rebels.
Then you will most definitely find these books we cited to be a rich
source of such truths because each book is based on the written record
of that era.
Moja
wrote:
>>At least we fully agree on that. For those interested in reading the
>>full text of this classic article:
>>http://www.jim.com/jamesd/cowards.htm
>If you don't have the book, get it.
What book? I thought you were referring to his article in the Fall
1993 issue of The Public Interest and reproduced in the gun press. I
was not aware that he published a book. What is the title?
>All the great governments of the world---those now existing, as well
>as those that have passed away---have been of this character. They have
>been mere bands of robbers, who have associated for purposes of plunder,
>conquest, and the enslavement of their fellow men. And their laws, as
>they have called them, have been only such agreements as they have found
>it necessary to enter into, in order to maintain their organizations,
>and act together in plundering and enslaving others, and in securing to
>each his agreed share of the spoils.
>All these laws have had no more real obligation than have the agreements
>which brigands, bandits, and pirates find it necessary to enter into
>with each other, for the more successful accomplishment of their crimes,
>and the more peaceable division of their spoils.
> - Lysander Spooner, "Natural Law"
I like the outrageous rhetoric of Spooner, but he was a bit of a
flake.
>Want to understand why politicians do what they do? Simple: when you're
>a big, gray, greasy rat, walking around on two hind legs, you have a
>lot to gain by turning the world into a garbage heap.
> -- Memoirs of Lucille G. Kropotkin
I am adding that one to my collection. Who is Kropotkin?
>The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old
>parchments or musty records. They are written as with a sunbeam in the
>whole volume of human nature by the hand of Divinity itself, and can
>never be erased or obscured by mortal power.
> - Alexander Hamilton
Hamilton was a statist traitor to the spirit of the Constitution. It
was he who forced the convention to adopt federalism, which is what
led to America eventually becoming a Fascist Dictatorship. All it took
was a Fascist Tyrant like Lincoln to make it happen. He tried to usurp
power by creating a fiat money system like the one which has the
global economy on the brink of ruin now.
Moja
--
Moja
wrote:
>>The fact is that Lincoln started the War not to abolish slavery.
>Lincoln didn't start the war.
Then who did?
It certainly wasn't the CSA, so it had to be the Union and Lincoln was
the President of the Union at the time.
After the CSA was formed the Union pretty much accepted that fact of
reality and cleared out of the South with the sole exception of Ft.
Sumter. The Union troops at Sumter were there illegally, and the CSA
had the legitimate power to force them to leave.
Firing on Ft. Sumter was not the cause of the War. The CSA did not
declare war on the Union. Lincoln declared war on the CSA. Lincoln was
the first to conscript a 75,000 man army from the ranks of the state
militias.
Moja
wrote:
>>Lincoln didn't start the war.
>If Lincoln had not maintained an armed fortress (Ft. Sumter) in a foreign land
>would there have been a shooting war?
>Er.....I don't know either.
No one will ever know, but it is not hard to see that war was
inevitable and that the North was the aggressor. That's why it is
correctly called the War of Northern Aggression.
The North had no other choice but to bring the South back under its
control. The CSA had seceded in order to open up commerce with foreign
countries. That would have led to a flood of cheap goods in the North,
which in turn would have bankrupted Northern industry which could not
compete with the British and Europeans who were much farther along in
the Industrial Revolution.
The question I have is why the North thought they could get by
indefinitely with crippling tariffs. Didn't they consult history?
Salmon Chase consulted History - that of the Roman Empire and how
fascist dictatorships work. But he failed to take note that such
regimes ultimately collapse from their own dead weight.
There were two institutions that America should have let go of when
they formed the country: Protectionism and Slavery. In fact if the
North had not been so greedy and forced the South to exists solely as
an agrarian economy, slavery would have been abolished by natural
causes just like it had in all other parts of the Western Hemisphere.
Slavery was perpetuated by Northern greed.
Moja
wrote:
>> If Lincoln had not maintained an armed fortress (Ft. Sumter) in a foreign
>> land would there have been a shooting war?
>Well, there we have it. If the US had not provoked al Qaida by having the
>Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and the White House, there never would have been
>an attack on Sept 11. Bet there are some pretty women about who are just
>asking for it, too.
Are you taking some kind of illicit drugs - because you sound
completely insane.
The US had a legitimate claim to the Twin Towers, the Pentagon and the
White House. Lincoln did not have a legitimate claim to Ft. Sumter.
And he certainly did not have the legitimate authority to shell the
city of Charleston, SC.
Scout
"Jeffrey C. Dege" <jd...@jdege.visi.com> wrote in message
news:slrnauhutc...@jdege.visi.com...
> On Sat, 30 Nov 2002 17:34:57 GMT, Moja <moja...@mojaspam.cum> wrote:
> >
> >The fact is that Lincoln started the War not to abolish slavery.
>
> Lincoln didn't start the war.
No, one of his commanders do so by illegal occupying a fort in violation of
an agreement by the leaders on both sides.
Moja
wrote:
>Jesse is a pompous gas-bag.
That's true of essentially all politicians.
>He mouthed off the right-sounding noises,
>then appointed a bunch of retread "third-way" Democrats to his staff,
>and let them run things
More typical politician.
> while he sat on the couch drinking beer and
>watching the game.
Now that's the best politician there is. As Mark Twain said, the
country is safe as long as politicans do not meet in official
capacity.
I do think he makes a much better actor. I really liked him in
Predator.