ATTN JMS: Isn't someone at WB pissed?
MegaUser
hierarchy were starting to view B5 as a potential corporate franchise--not in a
"can't mess with the formula" sense that you hate--but in the sense of
something that could have continued to have spinoffs in various media and
extensive merchandising, etc.
Aren't any of those folks still around, and if so, aren't they really ticked
off at TNT management for damaging (possible irreparably) that potential???
Or were they never that excited, or were the people who were excited too far
down the totem pole to step in and get involved?
--Seth, just curious
Jms at B5
>off at TNT management for damaging (possible irreparably) that potential???
>
The problem in some measure is that there is an ongoing power struggle between
WB and TNT (WB owns TNT, but the biggest shareholder in WB is Ted Turner). And
nobody -- I mean *nobody* -- wants to get caught in the switches on this one.
jms
(jms...@aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com
John W. Kennedy
> The problem in some measure is that there is an ongoing power struggle between
> WB and TNT (WB owns TNT, but the biggest shareholder in WB is Ted Turner). And
> nobody -- I mean *nobody* -- wants to get caught in the switches on this one.
Y'know, something I don't get -- has TT, himself, publicly, or openly
within the industry, or even openly within Time-Warner, had anything to
say about the "Crusade" situation? I always thought his desired public
image was "class". But he must realize that even if "Crusade" is
suppressed forever, this business has, for a great many people (with
excellent demographics), permanently sullied the Turner name and brand,
and, because of your revelations about the L.A. - Atlanta dichotomy,
even besmirched the reputation of his beloved New South? Does he
realize that there are thousands, maybe as many as a million people who,
whenever they hear his name, will respond: "Yeah, Turner. He's the
Georgia jerk who killed a promising new TV series before it even aired,
because it didn't have enough gratuitous sex and violence for the
good-ol'-boy market"?
Yeah, he's used to being hated. But is he used to being hated in that
way, and for that reason?
--
-John W. Kennedy
-rri...@ibm.net
Compact is becoming contract
Man only earns and pays. -- Charles Williams
Diane K De
>Jms at B5 wrote:
>> The problem in some measure is that there is an ongoing power struggle
>between
>> WB and TNT (WB owns TNT, but the biggest shareholder in WB is Ted Turner).
>And
>> nobody -- I mean *nobody* -- wants to get caught in the switches on this
>one.
>
>Y'know, something I don't get -- has TT, himself, publicly, or openly
>within the industry, or even openly within Time-Warner, had anything to
>say about the "Crusade" situation? I always thought his desired public
>image was "class". But he must realize that even if "Crusade" is
>suppressed forever, this business has, for a great many people (with
>excellent demographics), permanently sullied the Turner name and brand,
>and, because of your revelations about the L.A. - Atlanta dichotomy,
>even besmirched the reputation of his beloved New South? Does he
>realize that there are thousands, maybe as many as a million people who,
>whenever they hear his name, will respond: "Yeah, Turner. He's the
>Georgia jerk who killed a promising new TV series before it even aired,
>because it didn't have enough gratuitous sex and violence for the
>good-ol'-boy market"?
>
There are hardly a million people who even know any of this. A thousand sounds
like a more likely number. Only a few obscure science fiction magazines and a
few websites have even published the "LA/Atlanta" dichotomy thing and the "sex
and violence" in any detail (the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette anyone?). The large
circulation publications said nothing more than "creative differences"
I wasn't aware that a small British publication called "Dreamwatch" was read by
a million Americans or that the "Save Crusade" sites have even had a million
"hits".
Even "Save Crusader" Tim Fleming reported going to a con and finding many
people unaware of this. It seemed a source of frustration to him.
The rest of the country is oblivious. I doubt the average person thinks much
about the people running any network.
To...@fred.net
:>Aren't any of those folks still around, and if so, aren't they really ticked
:>off at TNT management for damaging (possible irreparably) that potential???
: The problem in some measure is that there is an ongoing power struggle between
: WB and TNT (WB owns TNT, but the biggest shareholder in WB is Ted Turner). And
: nobody -- I mean *nobody* -- wants to get caught in the switches on this one.
Spoilers for B5 Season 4.....
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Get both of them to Corianus 6, (ask Billy Joe Briggs if he has any family
and tell him to send the message to Ted T), and after a big speech, tell
both to Get the HELL out of our Basic Cable.
It'll work.. I saw it on TV...
Don't tell me... Narns with Bats coming....
--
To...@Fred.Net http://www.fred.net/tomr
"Faith Manages....
... But Willow is in Tech Support"
[http://slashdot.org/features/99/04/29/0124247.shtml]
M.E.Tonkin
> Y'know, something I don't get -- has TT, himself, publicly, or openly
> within the industry, or even openly within Time-Warner, had anything to
> say about the "Crusade" situation? I always thought his desired public
> image was "class". But he must realize that even if "Crusade" is
> suppressed forever, this business has, for a great many people (with
> excellent demographics), permanently sullied the Turner name and brand,
> and, because of your revelations about the L.A. - Atlanta dichotomy,
> even besmirched the reputation of his beloved New South? Does he
> realize that there are thousands, maybe as many as a million people who,
> whenever they hear his name, will respond: "Yeah, Turner. He's the
> Georgia jerk who killed a promising new TV series before it even aired,
> because it didn't have enough gratuitous sex and violence for the
> good-ol'-boy market"?
>
Yes, by all means, let's brand an entire group of people - Southerners -
as
"good-ol'boys" and "redneck morons" (from another of Mr. Kennedy's
posts,
I well remember his use of the term) just because they dared to dislike
Crusade. You know, it's entirely possible that the TNT people in Atlanta
who disliked Crusade may not _be_ Southerners. They could have come to
TNT from anywhere in the US. Atlanta is a cosmopolitan city with many
residents who originated elsewhere and who moved there I suppose
willingly
and stay because they like living there.
If Babylon 5 taught us one thing, it is that we should never, ever
succumb
to the temptation to brand an entire group of people by the actions
of a few. Poor white Southerners are one of the last groups who are
still
subject to group insults, insults that would never be made were they
African
American or Jewish or gay. It is the one remaining acceptable bigotry,
and
it is a prejudice that I would hope fans of Babylon 5 would never
display.
And for the record, I am a native of West Virginia, and proud of it.
MET
BRETNTRACI
>still
>subject to group insults, insults that would never be made were they
>African
>American or Jewish or gay. It is the one remaining acceptable bigotry,
>and
>it is a prejudice that I would hope fans of Babylon 5 would never
>display.
>
Here, here. Well said.
Chad Page
first place (after seeing the real first two episodes, i really dunno what they
were complaining about!) I think if they had only left you guys alone
and gave the show a good push, we wouldn't be worrying about a second season
at all.
- Chad,
who would really like to see the rest of Crusade. sigh.
Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Aren't any of those folks still around, and if so, aren't they really ticked
>>off at TNT management for damaging (possible irreparably) that potential???
>>
> The problem in some measure is that there is an ongoing power struggle between
> WB and TNT (WB owns TNT, but the biggest shareholder in WB is Ted Turner). And
> nobody -- I mean *nobody* -- wants to get caught in the switches on this one.
> jms
Tim Fleming
>
> There are hardly a million people who even know any of this. A thousand sounds
> like a more likely number. Only a few obscure science fiction magazines and a
> few websites have even published the "LA/Atlanta" dichotomy thing and the "sex
> and violence" in any detail (the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette anyone?). The large
> circulation publications said nothing more than "creative differences"
>
The major newspaper of Cleveland "The Cleveland Plane Dealer" discussed at
length TNT's attempt to increase the level of sex and violence in the show. This
paper has a large circulation. It is the major paper of Ohio. Does that count?
> Even "Save Crusader" Tim Fleming reported going to a con and finding many
> people unaware of this. It seemed a source of frustration to him.
>
If you know this then you must know about "The Cleveland Plain Dealer" .
I believe that is the article where I was mentioned. Anyway, the frustration
stemmed from it being mostly a Trek crowd.
> The rest of the country is oblivious. I doubt the average person thinks much
> about the people running any network.
>
I can't speak for the average person. Yet I do know that many people I have
discussed this issue with feel that the networks are run by idiots for idiots. No
wonder the network folks didn't get Crusade.
In fact it seems to be a prevailing opinion among those that I know that TV
is a wasted medium. Pandering is the rule of the day.
Do you ever get tired defending the wisdom of the TV industry ? just
curious.
-Tim
John W. Kennedy
> Yes, by all means, let's brand an entire group of people - Southerners -
> as
> "good-ol'boys" and "redneck morons" (from another of Mr. Kennedy's
> posts,
and "ignorant crackers", too. And let's not forget "white trash".
I calls 'em as I sees 'em.
> If Babylon 5 taught us one thing, it is that we should never, ever
> succumb
> to the temptation to brand an entire group of people by the actions
> of a few. Poor white Southerners are one of the last groups who are
Oh please! What about Roman Catholics, or any other kind of Christian,
for that matter? What about Southern Californians?
In any case, this entire screed fails by the test of simple logic. I
never said _anything_ about all southerners. I said the executives at
TNT Atlanta are redneck morons, good-ol' boys, ignorant crackers and
poor white trash. "By their fruits shall ye know them."
Hell, about half my rhetoric on this point has been plagiarized from
Brett Butler, anyway.
M.E.Tonkin
>
>
> > If Babylon 5 taught us one thing, it is that we should never, ever
> > succumb
> > to the temptation to brand an entire group of people by the actions
> > of a few. Poor white Southerners are one of the last groups who are
> > still
> > subject to group insults, insults that would never be made were they
> > African
> > American or Jewish or gay. It is the one remaining acceptable bigotry,
> > and
> > it is a prejudice that I would hope fans of Babylon 5 would never
> > display.
>
> Oh please! What about Roman Catholics, or any other kind of Christian,
> for that matter? What about Southern Californians?
>
So, what's your point? *Look* at what I wrote just as you quoted it in
your
posting; I said "one" of the last groups. And in any event, does that
make it right to use ethnic/racial /religious slurs because other groups
are slurred?
> In any case, this entire screed fails by the test of simple logic. I
> never said _anything_ about all southerners. I said the executives at
> TNT Atlanta are redneck morons, good-ol' boys, ignorant crackers and
> poor white trash. "By their fruits shall ye know them."
>
And I repeat, you do not know that the TNT execs who disliked Crusade
are Southerners, and every epithet you use originated as a slur of
Southerners. Furthermore, the gist of your entire posting was how
Crusade's cancellation would taint the entire New South, that all
Southerners would be guilty by association so to speak because TNT
is headquarted in Atlanta.
> Hell, about half my rhetoric on this point has been plagiarized from
> Brett Butler, anyway.
>
So, it's like the tee-shirt says, "It's a black thing"...outsiders
cannot criticize a group they don't belong to. Are you a Southerner?
Finis...
Curt
"John W. Kennedy" wrote:
>
> Jms at B5 wrote:
> > The problem in some measure is that there is an ongoing power struggle between
> > WB and TNT (WB owns TNT, but the biggest shareholder in WB is Ted Turner). And
> > nobody -- I mean *nobody* -- wants to get caught in the switches on this one.
>
> Y'know, something I don't get -- has TT, himself, publicly, or openly
> within the industry, or even openly within Time-Warner, had anything to
> say about the "Crusade" situation? I always thought his desired public
> image was "class". But he must realize that even if "Crusade" is
> suppressed forever, this business has, for a great many people (with
> excellent demographics), permanently sullied the Turner name and brand,
> and, because of your revelations about the L.A. - Atlanta dichotomy,
> even besmirched the reputation of his beloved New South? Does he
> realize that there are thousands, maybe as many as a million people who,
> whenever they hear his name, will respond: "Yeah, Turner. He's the
> Georgia jerk who killed a promising new TV series before it even aired,
> because it didn't have enough gratuitous sex and violence for the
> good-ol'-boy market"?
>
> Yeah, he's used to being hated. But is he used to being hated in that
> way, and for that reason?
Yeah WWF is a class act. Every rennisance festival I have ever attended
is better acted. And there is that pro-confederate film that TNT ran
last month. The Hunley was well done but the more I thought about it
I realized that it had me cheering for a boat full damn Rebels sinking
an Union ship. I am sorry but this glorifies the Confederate cause.
No one would ever make a pro Nazi movie and air it on their network
with out considering the reaction.
I heard a scary Turner rumor last week at the comic shop. Turner is
maneuvering in Time Warner to gain control of DC Comics- another
one of the subsidiaries of Time Warner. As the owner of the
comic shop put it Turner could single handedly destroy the entire
comics industry since DC-Vertigo-Paradox-Mad-Wildstorm account for
over one half of the industry since Marvel was run into the ground
a few years back. If he continues to surround himself
with people of the same calibur at the Atlanta office of TNT he
may manage to pull a good deal of Time Warner down around him.
Curt
Tammy Smith
They really need to realize that America is not full of idiots who can
only handle wrestling or some silly, mindless sitcom. Yes, some people
do like that stuff, but there is another audience of people who want
intelligent, innovative programming that they seem to be ignoring.
Tammy
Justin Bacon
>I am sorry but this glorifies the Confederate cause.
>No one would ever make a pro Nazi movie and air it on their network
>with out considering the reaction.
Isn't DAS BOOT about a German submarine? Admittedly not a network movie,
but....
Justin Bacon
tr...@prairie.lakes.com
galen...@my-deja.com
dian...@aol.com (Diane K De) wrote:
> >From: "John W. Kennedy"
thousand sounds
> like a more likely number. Only a few obscure science fiction
magazines and a
> few websites have even published the "LA/Atlanta" dichotomy thing and
the "sex
> and violence" in any detail (the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette anyone?).
The large
> circulation publications said nothing more than "creative differences"
>
was read by
> a million Americans or that the "Save Crusade" sites have even had a
million
> "hits".
>
many
> people unaware of this. It seemed a source of frustration to him.
>
thinks much
> about the people running any network.
>
that
> >way, and for that reason?
> >
> >-John W. Kennedy
>
>
Ok...so how do you suppose we reach these thousands of Fans that don't
know the story behind the story? Surely if it was going to be easy to
get everyone on the 'band wagon' then JMS, or someone, would have done
this long ago. Also, why weren't the cons. used to keep the fan base
up to date, like the websites are?
Still, a good point made...There needs to be more verbal communication
as well as electronic, between B5/Crusade fans, and the rest of the Sci-
fi community.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Diane K De
>> There are hardly a million people who even know any of this. A thousand
>sounds
>> like a more likely number. Only a few obscure science fiction magazines
>and a
>> few websites have even published the "LA/Atlanta" dichotomy thing and the
>"sex
>> and violence" in any detail (the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette anyone?). The
>large
>> circulation publications said nothing more than "creative differences"
>>
>
> The major newspaper of Cleveland "The Cleveland Plane Dealer" discussed
>at
>length TNT's attempt to increase the level of sex and violence in the show.
>This
>paper has a large circulation. It is the major paper of Ohio. Does that
>count?
>
In Cleveland, I suppose. Do you want me to look up the Cleveland Plain
Dealer's coverage of Cleveland? I can, you know.
>> Even "Save Crusader" Tim Fleming reported going to a con and finding many
>> people unaware of this. It seemed a source of frustration to him.
>>
>
> If you know this then you must know about "The Cleveland Plain Dealer"
>.
>I believe that is the article where I was mentioned. Anyway, the
>frustration
>stemmed from it being mostly a Trek crowd.
>
And where is this B5/Crusade crowd, Tim?
You prove my point. Unless you are specifically in a room full of B5
ultra-fans few people know of this. Do you think it would be any different if
you went to the local mall and stopped people at random?
>> The rest of the country is oblivious. I doubt the average person thinks
>much
>> about the people running any network.
>>
>
> I can't speak for the average person. Yet I do know that many people I
>have
>discussed this issue with feel that the networks are run by idiots for
>idiots. No
>wonder the network folks didn't get Crusade.
> In fact it seems to be a prevailing opinion among those that I know that
>TV
>is a wasted medium. Pandering is the rule of the day.
> Do you ever get tired defending the wisdom of the TV industry ? just
>curious.
>
I don't defend the industry. They do pander to what is popular and what gets
ratings.
What I defend is objectivity and making assumptions based on real research vs.
supposition. You are a physicist, Tim. You understand research based on
empirical data. Media research isn't has rules and procedures of its own.
Every medium in the U.S. is measured in terms of its reach of the U.S. public.
One can't make a claim that a million people know about something without
supporting it with data that there has been enough media coverage to allow that
to happen. (Hint: just because an article is in a newspaper doesn't mean
every person who received that newspaper read it. What newspaper did you read
yesterday? Did you read EVERY article?)
Mr. Kennedy makes the assumption that many people harbor bad thoughts about Ted
Turner because of TNT's behavior toward Crusade. Meanwhile, next week's TV
Guide lists TNT in their "Cheers and Jeers" section as a "Cheers". I'm still
waiting for that "Jeers" thing about Crusade. I guess TV Guide's editors
missed that one, eh? I thought you guys wrote them letters as part of your
campaign.
DD
Richard Bossard
Tim Fleming <fle...@astro.umd.edu> wrote in message
news:37BB2679...@astro.umd.edu...
> The major newspaper of Cleveland "The Cleveland Plane Dealer"
discussed at
> length TNT's attempt to increase the level of sex and violence in the
show. This
> paper has a large circulation. It is the major paper of Ohio. Does that
count?
I'm surprised they haven't tried to add WCW wrestling to the series...
Rick
no one of consequence
Justin Bacon <tria...@aol.com> wrote:
]In article <37BB7F56...@erols.com>, Curt <eskr...@erols.com> writes:
]
]>I am sorry but this glorifies the Confederate cause.
]>No one would ever make a pro Nazi movie and air it on their network
]>with out considering the reaction.
]
]Isn't DAS BOOT about a German submarine? Admittedly not a network movie,
]but....
I remember seeing a trailer for a movie titled "Stalingrad" a few years
ago. The trailer seemed to be about German troops too.
--
|Patrick Chester (aka: claypigeon, Sinapus) wol...@io.com |
|"Anything I can do to help?" "Um. Short of dying? No, can't think of a |
| thing." -Morden, Vir. 'Interludes and Examinations' -Babylon 5 |
|Wittier remarks always come to mind just after sending your article.... |
James Stutts
Justin Bacon wrote in message
<19990820023800...@ngol07.aol.com>...
>In article <37BB7F56...@erols.com>, Curt <eskr...@erols.com> writes:
>
>>I am sorry but this glorifies the Confederate cause.
Point (1) These were our ancestors. Right or wrong, they fought for issues
they believed in. They should be remembered. If you have
an
ancestor that you feel did or was involved in something
shameful,
then you're welcome to be ashamed of them. Just don't
FORGET,
or you'll be a poster child for a certain historian's oft
quoted saying....
History isn't often comfortable or nice.
Point (2) Do you actually understand what the "Confederate cause" you speak
of was?
Point (3) Same could be said of all those Westerns where the good guys beat
up on the Indians.
>>No one would ever make a pro Nazi movie and air it on their network
>>with out considering the reaction.
A movie about German soldiers and sailors (ala Das Boot) need not be a "pro
Nazi"
movie any more than a war movie need be a "pro war" movie.
JCS
Roanna
Richard Bossard wrote:
> I'm surprised they haven't tried to add WCW wrestling to the series...
>
> Rick
Hey, that may have been in those 20 pages of notes. Don't
underestimate the brain trust at TNT, that's been proven.
Roanna
Thomas Bagwell
writes:
>I am sorry but this glorifies the Confederate cause.
"the Confederate cause"? The "Confederate cause" was about states'
rights, and a reaction to shifting economics. If you're referring to
slavery, that was only very peripherally related to the Civil War, and
then mainly towards the end.
Tom B.
Curt
James Stutts wrote:
>
> Justin Bacon wrote in message
> <19990820023800...@ngol07.aol.com>...
> >In article <37BB7F56...@erols.com>, Curt <eskr...@erols.com> writes:
> >
> >>I am sorry but this glorifies the Confederate cause.
>
> Point (1) These were our ancestors. Right or wrong, they fought for issues
> they believed in. They should be remembered. If you have
> an
> ancestor that you feel did or was involved in something
> shameful,
> then you're welcome to be ashamed of them. Just don't
> FORGET,
> or you'll be a poster child for a certain historian's oft
> quoted saying....
> History isn't often comfortable or nice.
My ancestors arrived after the civil war but that is not to the point.
I found the whole thing told in such a way that ignored the setting of
the war beyond the naval blockade and bombardment. When you tell a
history story as the history there ought to be some effort to show
why this is happening.
If I remember correctly there was no discussion in the Hunley as to why the
war was being fought except for southern honor. This is what I found most
disturbing about the thing. It is the Hogan's Heroes treatment- Ignore
the motivations for the war, ignore the atrocities just tell an amusing
story without any context for the conflict. I know enough about the history
to paint in the edges of the story and provide some context, but some people
lack that contextual reference. Right or wrong the movie becomes the account
of this incident that some people draw their knowledge of the incident and
the period.
You don't tell Schindler's List from the view point of the SS unless they
are shown as monsters. Any sympathetic treatment for the worst of the Nazi
death machine would bring down a storm of complaint. No one could get such
a movie into development at a studio much less produced. Jewish groups
would have headlines around the world in days. If this were more
blatant the NAACP would probably do the same.
I find fighting to subjugate or exterminate any group by race or religion
abhorrent. This includes Blacks, Jews, Serbs, Albanians, Kurds, Gypsy,
or Narns for that matter. Attempts to make this end look like a valid
thing to do are what bother me. This is one of the reasons that I found
Babylon 5 powerful. These sorts of conflicts, their causes and their effects
were shown.
Curt
Greg Corbin
Diane K De wrote:
> > The major newspaper of Cleveland "The Cleveland Plane Dealer"
> discussed
> >at length TNT's attempt to increase the level of sex and violence in
> the show.
> >This paper has a large circulation. It is the major paper of Ohio.
> Does that
> >count?
>
> In Cleveland, I suppose. Do you want me to look up the Cleveland
> Plain
> Dealer's coverage of Cleveland? I can, you know.
>
Actually, the story made it over the AP wire. A version, minus a
few paragraphs here and there, was printed in the Kansas City Star about
a week later.
> You prove my point. Unless you are specifically in a room full of B5
> ultra-fans few people know of this. Do you think it would be any
> different if
> you went to the local mall and stopped people at random?
>
I agree. Not even most of the net-active ones know about it. For
better or for worse, B5/Crusade has a hard time presenting itself to the
public at large, being terminally unhip, terribly old-fashioned, and
totally out of sync with the Zeitgeist. I find these qualities
endearing--being possessed of them myself--but then I don't require the
approval of millions to continue to exist, either.
> [ valuable comments on media penetration snipped for space ]
>
> Mr. Kennedy makes the assumption that many people harbor bad thoughts
> about Ted
> Turner because of TNT's behavior toward Crusade. Meanwhile, next
> week's TV
> Guide
....AKA the shill for Rupert Murdoch's evil, evil News Corp.
> lists TNT in their "Cheers and Jeers" section as a "Cheers".
Yeah, for goddamn "You Know My Name". You know I read an interview
where Sam Elliot said TNT wouldn't let him play Bill Tilghman as a
73-year-old (the age he was when he came out of retirement in real
life)? So "Cheers" to baloney and historical inaccuracy as served up by
my all-time favorite network.
> I'm still
> waiting for that "Jeers" thing about Crusade. I guess TV Guide's
> editors
> missed that one, eh? I thought you guys wrote them letters as part of
> your
> campaign.
Ouch, that'd be barbed if TV Guide had any value outside of kindling or
toilet paper.
I'm sorry, but being some sort of an insider in the TV business is about
as unimpressive as it gets. The medium is singularly transparent. Do
the TV Guide editors posess some sort of specialized knowledge that
makes their opinions on television better than everyone else's? Does
anyone? We've got all these networks and magazines trying to tell us
what we should be watching and thinking, yet no one I know--not my
family, not the sixty people I live with at school, not my friends, not
my friends' respective families...pays any attention to any of it. TV
viewing has a lot more to do with habit than with what you read in the
paper. Hell, myself and my three "Crusade"-watching acquaintances are
the only people I know who are even in the habit of arranging our
schedules so as not to miss a particular show, though after two more
weeks, even that will cease to be the case.
Reverend Jake
feel my pain at http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/shirley/272/
James Stutts
Curt wrote in message <37BF6A6B...@erols.com>...
>
>
>
>James Stutts wrote:
>>
>> Justin Bacon wrote in message
>> <19990820023800.
<snip>
>If I remember correctly there was no discussion in the Hunley as to why the
>war was being fought except for southern honor. This is what I found most
>disturbing about the thing. It is the Hogan's Heroes treatment- Ignore
They were fighting for their homes and against Federalism. They were not
fighting for slavery. A not insignificant group of Southerners considered
slavery
abhorent.
>the motivations for the war, ignore the atrocities just tell an amusing
>story without any context for the conflict. I know enough about the
history
Brave men going to nearly certain death is amusing to you?
>to paint in the edges of the story and provide some context, but some
people
>lack that contextual reference. Right or wrong the movie becomes the
account
>of this incident that some people draw their knowledge of the incident and
>the period.
>
Slavery had nothing to do with the CSS Hunley. They were fighting to
protect
Charleston. If you're interested in atrocities, look up Sherman and the
conduct of the
Union Army in occupied territory towards civilians.
>
>You don't tell Schindler's List from the view point of the SS unless they
>are shown as monsters. Any sympathetic treatment for the worst of the Nazi
>death machine would bring down a storm of complaint. No one could get such
>a movie into development at a studio much less produced. Jewish groups
>would have headlines around the world in days. If this were more
>blatant the NAACP would probably do the same.
>
>
>I find fighting to subjugate or exterminate any group by race or religion
>abhorrent. This includes Blacks, Jews, Serbs, Albanians, Kurds, Gypsy,
So you should. That wasn't what the movie, or really the war, was about.
JCS
Justin Bacon
<rbos...@compunetix.com> writes:
>I'm surprised they haven't tried to add WCW wrestling to the series...
Unfortunately it appears that Voyager has that idea all wrapped up (although
the wrestlers they'll be using may be from the WFW for all I know).
Justin Bacon
tr...@prairie.lakes.com
Diane K De
>what we should be watching and thinking, yet no one I know--not my
>family, not the sixty people I live with at school, not my friends, not
>my friends' respective families...pays any attention to any of it. TV
>viewing has a lot more to do with habit than with what you read in the
>paper. Hell, myself and my three "Crusade"-watching acquaintances are
>the only people I know who are even in the habit of arranging our
>schedules so as not to miss a particular show, though after two more
>weeks, even that will cease to be the case.
>
> Reverend Jake
Thanks, Reverand. Someone "gets it". Very few people care about what goes on
behind the scenes. Which is why very few people know enough about Crusade to
cause TNT any trouble in the big picture.
You could probably put it in every newspaper in the country and TV Guide and
very few people would notice.
DD
BRETNTRACI
>In article <37BB7F56...@erols.com>, Curt <eskr...@erols.com>
>writes:
>>I am sorry but this glorifies the Confederate cause.
>
>rights, and a reaction to shifting economics. If you're referring to
>slavery, that was only very peripherally related to the Civil War, and
>then mainly towards the end.
>
>Tom B.
>
Yes - South Carolina's secession, and the secession of all the states following
that secession, were PERFECTLY LEGAL under the laws of the United States at
that time. What Lincoln did was nothing short of totalitarian dictatorship -
all that hoopla about 'preserving the union' was nothing but a bunch of
propaganda - ditto for the 'freeing the slaves'. The only reason Lincoln
decided to free slaves was to keep the border states (Kentucky, Maryland and
one other) from joining the South, which they were about to do because the
North was in the WRONG.
Not about slavery but aobut leaving the union.
I'm not sure what percentage of votes the southern states had to have to
legally decide on secession, but I do know that EVERY LAST ONE of them did it
legally.
(this has been a big brewhaha in another thread)
The whole reason the south wanted to secede in the first place was because the
north was monopolizing policy decisions that were destroying the south's
strength, and effectively making the southern states subject to the northern
decisions. Slavery had nothing to do with the war until the war was already
three years old - it was all money and politics.
Can you tell you hit a soft spot?
Defending the South's does not mean defending slavery nor does being proud of
SOuthern heritage mean that you forgive such atrocities. As will all cultures
you have to take the good with he bad.Slavery was definately the bad but, as
far as leaving the Union and the War. The South was right even if their views
on slavery was wong.
D. Filip
On 22 Aug 1999, James Stutts wrote:
> They were fighting for their homes and against Federalism. They were
> not fighting for slavery. A not insignificant group of Southerners
Many, including Gen. Lee disliked slavery, but considering the
strength of abolitionists in the north and weakness of abolitionists in
the South, those men effectively fought and died to keep American slavery
strong. It may not be what they wanted, but it's a part of what they did.
On 22 Aug 1999, Curt wrote:
> I found the whole thing told in such a way that ignored the setting of
> the war beyond the naval blockade and bombardment. When you tell a
> history story as the history there ought to be some effort to show
> why this is happening.
[cut]
> If I remember correctly there was no discussion in the Hunley as to why the
> war was being fought except for southern honor. This is what I found most
[cut]
> You don't tell Schindler's List from the view point of the SS unless they
> are shown as monsters. Any sympathetic treatment for the worst of the Nazi
Although I agree with the sentiment, I feel that The Hunley was
fairly accurate in terms of showing the South's motivations. Just as so
many Germans brushed the Death Camps' ashes off their cars before going to
work and didn't fight their own government, many Southerners just ignored
the horror of slavery. The movie didn't say whether they disliked
federalism more than slavery and focused on the 19th Century equivalent
of carpet bombing that hit their homes and families instead of the
day-to-day horror their wealthy upper-crust perpetrated.
It all depends on the individuals' memoirs to tell us what they
were really thinking (which I don't have and I'm not sure what sources
they used for the movie). Considering the time frame and movie's focus,
The Hunley was nothing if not fair with the "man on the field's" view.
They were just concerned with their families and the tasks at hand while
morality took a back seat.
-----David Filip-------------------- grim...@u.washington.edu -----
Are you tired of conformity on the internet? You can rebel against
the culture of the 'net in four easy steps!
1) Discuss politics politely.
2) Thank and encourage usenet crossposters.
3) Support censorship in any form.
4) Praise Apple computers, Intel, Microsoft, AOL, and the
entertainment industry for a job well done.
John W. Kennedy
> "the Confederate cause"? The "Confederate cause" was about states'
> rights, and a reaction to shifting economics. If you're referring to
> slavery, that was only very peripherally related to the Civil War, and
> then mainly towards the end.
The Confederate cause was slavery, pure and simple. Not even pure
slavery but extending slavery to the rest of the country. That's why
they resorted to outright treason when a president was elected (and
there is some evidence that Lincoln's election was actually rigged by
southern extremists) who had done nothing more than oppose extension of
slavery into new territories.
Until the South is willing to admit they were wrong, this issue will
never die.
WWS
"John W. Kennedy" wrote:
>
> Thomas Bagwell wrote:
> > "the Confederate cause"? The "Confederate cause" was about states'
> > rights, and a reaction to shifting economics. If you're referring to
> > slavery, that was only very peripherally related to the Civil War, and
> > then mainly towards the end.
>
> The Confederate cause was slavery, pure and simple. Not even pure
> slavery but extending slavery to the rest of the country. That's why
> they resorted to outright treason when a president was elected (and
> there is some evidence that Lincoln's election was actually rigged by
> southern extremists) who had done nothing more than oppose extension of
> slavery into new territories.
>
> Until the South is willing to admit they were wrong, this issue will
> never die.
Spoken like a true idealogue. A shame you don't have any facts
to back up any of those claims. Banning slavery wasn't even an issue
in the North until 1863, and wasn't outlawed in the North until
much later than that. They found that the issue gave them better PR
than they ever had hoped for, especially in England, and subsequently
did as much soviet style retconning as possible to make it look like
that was the justification for everything.
And people fall for that disinformation campaign till this very day.
--
__________________________________________________WWS_____________
WWS
I agree with that, and thought that "The Hunley" did one of the best jobs
I've ever seen of portraying why men *Really* fight, and why men would
volunteer for what was almost certainly a suicide mission. Men really
don't fight for grand ideological causes very often - these men fought
because they were watching the homes of their friends and family being
blasted into bits while they stood by and couldn't stop it. It was really
one of the first instances of a policy that was just repeated in Kosovo -
is it moral and ethical to go and blast a civilian population to bits
because you disagree with the actions of their leadership? One thing
that's guaranteed, the civilians left after that are going to hate the
ones who did it to them forever for it.
--
__________________________________________________WWS_____________
Von Bruno
So am I. It would have been an extremely smart thing to do as it would have,
hopefully, lead to people sampling the show and sticking around.
-Von Bruno-
GaryG4430
<stu...@mindspring.com> writes:
>A movie about German soldiers and sailors (ala Das Boot) need not be a
>"pro Nazi" movie any more than a war movie need be a "pro war" movie.
>
>JCS
Agreed:
The hunt for the Bismark, from the German point of view, would
make an excellent MFTV Movie.
So would the defense of Normandy on D-Day.
There's a fairly good book on the later.
IIRC titled: "They're Here!"
(Imagine looking out towards the horizon at dawn and seeing
thousands and thousands of ships. And when you pick up the
phone and call headquarters; They Don't Believe You!)
Would make a good dark comedy.
Gary G.
--
Gary Grossoehme - GaryG4430 "at" aol "dot" com
Oregon Electronics - 503-239-5293
935 NE Couch St. - Computer Cable Specialists
Portland, Oregon - Member: AfterBurner Fan Club.
BRETNTRACI
>slavery but extending slavery to the rest of the country. That's why
>they resorted to outright treason when a president was elected (and
>there is some evidence that Lincoln's election was actually rigged by
>southern extremists) who had done nothing more than oppose extension of
>slavery into new territories.
>
>Until the South is willing to admit they were wrong, this issue will
>never die.
Slavery was wrong *but* the South was right. It was about states rights.
I'll repeat part of my last post:
South Carolina's secession, and the secession of all the states following that
secession, were PERFECTLY LEGAL under the laws of the United States at that
time. What Lincoln did was nothing short of totalitarian dictatorship - all
that hoopla about 'preserving the union' was nothing but a bunch of propaganda
- ditto for the 'freeing the slaves'. The only reason Lincoln decided to free
slaves was to keep the border states (Kentucky, Maryland and one other) from
joining the South, which they were about to do because the North was in the
WRONG.
I'm not sure what percentage of votes the southern states had to have to
legally decide on secession, but I do know that there was no law prohibiting
secession thus it fell to the States to decide (per the general STRUCTURE of
the governemnt), but I do know that EVERY LAST ONE of them did it legally.
The whole reason the south wanted to secede in the first place was because the
north was monopolizing policy decisions that were destroying the south's
strength, and effectively making the southern states subject to the northern
decisions. Slavery had nothing to do with the war until the war was already
**three years old** - it was all money and politics.
Sorry to keep repeating myself but 've been waging this one in another thread.
BRETNTRACI
>I've ever seen of portraying why men *Really* fight, and why men would
>volunteer for what was almost certainly a suicide mission. Men really
>don't fight for grand ideological causes very often - these men fought
>because they were watching the homes of their friends and family being
>blasted into bits while they stood by and couldn't stop it. It was really
>one of the first instances of a policy that was just repeated in Kosovo -
>is it moral and ethical to go and blast a civilian population to bits
>because you disagree with the actions of their leadership? One thing
>that's guaranteed, the civilians left after that are going to hate the
>ones who did it to them forever for it.
A good point, I didn't watch the Hunley, I am truly only in this race becasue
so many people keep going back to slavery as an issue. FOrget the fact that
many soldiers from the South could care less about slavery (many were too poor
to buy one... thus really didnt care. So their reasons would have to be
something else and loss of freadom is one, you point out another quite
effectively. I'm sure there are plenty others, but the uneducated always fall
back to slavery -- even though it wasn';t even an issue until the War had been
going three years. <sigh>
Curt
Thomas Bagwell wrote:
>
> In article <37BB7F56...@erols.com>, Curt <eskr...@erols.com>
> writes:
> >I am sorry but this glorifies the Confederate cause.
>
> "the Confederate cause"? The "Confederate cause" was about states'
> rights, and a reaction to shifting economics. If you're referring to
> slavery, that was only very peripherally related to the Civil War, and
> then mainly towards the end.
States rights over human rights-- I know which way I go. Granted that
the Abolition of slavery wasn't a stated goal of the Union until Lincoln
issued the Emancipation Proclamantion in an attempt to bolster the Union
forces with freed slaves. But Slavery would never have been abolished
if the Confederacy were allowed to stand on it's own. Slavery was a
system that was not likely survive on economic grounds for much longer
as industrialization swept the north.
Fighting a war against technological progress wasn't particularly
useful either. The north was gaining wealth on the south due to
the higher productivity of individuals in an industrial setting
while slavery has a high overhead in human upkeep, and costs associated
with keeping a semi-hostile workforce in line. It isn't good to have
poor neighbors to your south whether they are Virginians or Mexicans.
It may confuse cause and effect but the Confederacy was bad for the
continent and the abolition of slavery is just one good effect of the
conflict but not the only one. The south has finally started to
get it's act together in the latter half of this century. Now
if they could figure out traffic planning, zoning and controlled
growth.
Curt
Curt
James Stutts wrote:
>
> Curt wrote in message <37BF6A6B...@erols.com>...
> >
> >
> >
> >James Stutts wrote:
> >>
> >> Justin Bacon wrote in message
> >> <19990820023800.
>
> <snip>
>
> >If I remember correctly there was no discussion in the Hunley as to why the
> >war was being fought except for southern honor. This is what I found most
> >disturbing about the thing. It is the Hogan's Heroes treatment- Ignore
>
> They were fighting for their homes and against Federalism. They were not
> fighting for slavery. A not insignificant group of Southerners considered
> slavery
> abhorent.
>
> >the motivations for the war, ignore the atrocities just tell an amusing
> >story without any context for the conflict. I know enough about the
> history
>
> Brave men going to nearly certain death is amusing to you?
Where in the world did this come from? I didn't cheer when the
thing sank. Brave men deserve some respect even if it is in an
undeserving cause.
The Hunley was staged as an entertainment. It was designed to be amusing.
I found it compelling enough. I guess the real question is whether it is
proper to tell this sort of story without a balanced view.
> >to paint in the edges of the story and provide some context, but some
> people
> >lack that contextual reference. Right or wrong the movie becomes the
> account
> >of this incident that some people draw their knowledge of the incident and
> >the period.
> >
>
> Slavery had nothing to do with the CSS Hunley. They were fighting to
> protect
> Charleston. If you're interested in atrocities, look up Sherman and the
> conduct of the
> Union Army in occupied territory towards civilians.
One wrong does not justify another wrong.
Curt
Curt
Justin Bacon wrote:
>
> In article <2Hiv3.90$Kl.16...@speed.city-net.com>, "Richard Bossard"
> <rbos...@compunetix.com> writes:
>
> >I'm surprised they haven't tried to add WCW wrestling to the series...
>
> Unfortunately it appears that Voyager has that idea all wrapped up (although
> the wrestlers they'll be using may be from the WFW for all I know).
>
Muppets in Space had Hulk Hollywood Hogan in as a cameo. What I want to
see is Hogan shilling for Rogaine...
When they slip wrestling into Law & Order the apacolypse is coming.
Curt
Roanna
thread.
Not everyone who is interested in the originating msg is
interested in following you all down this winding path.
Thanks.
Roanna
Dwiff
in the North until 1863, and wasn't outlawed in the North until
much later than that. >>
I'd check YOUR facts before making such incorrect and simplistic statements.
For instance, you might want to look into the history of a state called Kansas,
something called the abolitionist movement, the underground railroad, and
President Lincoln's inaugural and State of the Union address' before claiming
slavery was not an issue, and wherever did you get the idea that slavery
"wasn't outlawed in the North"-- which states are you referring to? I'll think
you'll find that it was banned in the entire Northeast, for instance, in some
cases for over a HUNDRED YEARS (massachusetts) before the start of the war. Put
down the pamphlet and read some primary source material before you start
spreading a party line.
Von Bruno
Well, as far as the Civil War goes, that was a mixed bag as those against
slavery still viewed the whites as inheritly superior to blacks, therefore, the
"human rights" aspect of the conflict is questionable.
The North outlawed slavery primarily to disrupt the South during the conflict,
and when one takes into account how the blacks were treated by both sides
during and after the war it raises some interesting questions as to the
"nobility of motive."
President Lincoln remember was a seperationist and felt, as most whites did
back then, that the races should dichotomize (not to be mixed or considered
equal), and treated much the same as Indians. Lincoln, I believe, even proposed
a reservation type area be set aside for this purpose.
-Von Bruno-
John W. Kennedy
>
> "John W. Kennedy" wrote:
> >
> > Thomas Bagwell wrote:
> > > rights, and a reaction to shifting economics. If you're referring to
> > > slavery, that was only very peripherally related to the Civil War, and
> > > then mainly towards the end.
> >
> > slavery but extending slavery to the rest of the country. That's why
> > they resorted to outright treason when a president was elected (and
> > there is some evidence that Lincoln's election was actually rigged by
> > southern extremists) who had done nothing more than oppose extension of
> > slavery into new territories.
> >
> > Until the South is willing to admit they were wrong, this issue will
> > never die.
>
> in the North until 1863, and wasn't outlawed in the North until
> much later than that.
Fascinating. Absolutely fascinating. I say the war was about Southern
ambition to extend slavery into the rest of the nation, and you reply,
"No, it wasn't about abolition at all." Uh-huh.
The statement: "Banning slavery wasn't even an issue in the North until
1863," is cute all by itself, too. Let's see, when did Lincoln first
issue the Emancipation Proclamation? September 22, 1862. Ah, but let's
look further. "Wasn't even an issue," forsooth? When was Elijah
Lovejoy murdered? November 7, 1837. And let's not even bring up
Garrison.
Not to mention that it was the South that initiated secession and that
it was the South that started the war, which makes all this poking at
Northern purity of intention a bit off the point.
John W. Kennedy
> Slavery was wrong *but* the South was right. It was about states rights.
> I'll repeat part of my last post:
> South Carolina's secession, and the secession of all the states following that
> secession, were PERFECTLY LEGAL under the laws of the United States at that
> time.
...which you have been repeated asked to prove, and have covered under a
flurry of handwaving.
> What Lincoln did was nothing short of totalitarian dictatorship - all
> that hoopla about 'preserving the union' was nothing but a bunch of propaganda
Now you're teetering on the brink of madness. Kindly observe the order
in which things happened. Southern states announced their (frequently
illegal even in terms of the particular states' laws, considering that
secession was often "voted" on by extralegal and nonrepresentative
bodies) intent to secede _solely_ on the grounds that "nigger-lover"
Lincoln had been elected - and with no other offense from him but his
persistently maintaining that _other_ states and territories had the
right to make slavery illegal within their own borders. The
secessionists would not be satisfied until slavery was imposed on the
entire nation. Read their own speeches.
And if Lincoln wasn't trying to preserve the Union, what in God's name
was he doing?
> - ditto for the 'freeing the slaves'. The only reason Lincoln decided to free
> slaves was to keep the border states (Kentucky, Maryland and one other) from
> joining the South, which they were about to do because the North was in the
> WRONG.
Utterly imaginary, especially since Kentucky and Maryland were _slave_
states. If they were about to secede for no reason, why on earth should
it discourage them when he _gave_ them a reason? The remaining
traditional "border state" is West Virginia, which damned well wasn't
going to join the Confederacy.
> The whole reason the south wanted to secede in the first place was because the
> north was monopolizing policy decisions that were destroying the south's
> strength, and effectively making the southern states subject to the northern
> decisions.
The North increased in power before the war because the South was
hysterically committed to a social structure in which labor was done by
the uneducated and the educated lived on their backs.
John W. Kennedy
>
> <<States rights over human rights>>Curt eskridge
>
> Well, as far as the Civil War goes, that was a mixed bag as those against
> slavery still viewed the whites as inheritly superior to blacks, therefore, the
> "human rights" aspect of the conflict is questionable.
Only some felt that way. Many abolitionists were outspoken
egalitarians.
> The North outlawed slavery primarily to disrupt the South during the conflict,
Actually, although the Emancipation Proclamation only effected areas in
rebellion, the 13th Amendment made it nationwide.
> and when one takes into account how the blacks were treated by both sides
> during and after the war it raises some interesting questions as to the
> "nobility of motive."
This is simply a tu quoque, and a weak one at that.
Thomas Fitzgerald Van Horne
>>The Confederate cause was slavery, pure and simple. Not even pure
>>slavery but extending slavery to the rest of the country.
>
>I'll repeat part of my last post:
>South Carolina's secession, and the secession of all the states following that
>secession, were PERFECTLY LEGAL under the laws of the United States at that
>that hoopla about 'preserving the union' was nothing but a bunch of propaganda
> I'm not sure what percentage of votes the southern states had to have to
>legally decide on secession, but I do know that there was no law prohibiting
>secession thus it fell to the States to decide (per the general STRUCTURE of
>the governemnt), but I do know that EVERY LAST ONE of them did it legally.
>north was monopolizing policy decisions that were destroying the south's
>strength, and effectively making the southern states subject to the northern
>**three years old** - it was all money and politics.
>Sorry to keep repeating myself but 've been waging this one in another thread.
While its wrong to say that the Condederate cause was slavery, pure and
simple, and it is correct to say that the critical issue was one of "state's
rights" at least in its broader sense, it verges on the nonsensical to say
that "that hoopla about 'preserving the union' was nothing but a bunch of
propaganda". And if slavery had nothing to do with the war, it certainly had
everything to do with the reason for the war.
It is also correct to say that "it was all money and politics", but then for
what issue of public interest would that statement be false? Politics covers
the decision of what laws will govern a people. Laws have no existence
without politics-- that's what politics be (which people seem to have
forgotten somehow).
Slavery was a white-hot political issue that dominated all North/South
politics for a generation leading up to 1860. The election of Lincoln, who was
a known, committed abolitionist to the Presidency by an entirely Northern
vote was the last straw. The South certainly BELIEVED that Lincoln would try
to free the slaves, or at least outlaw and harass the extensions of slavery
driving the South into permanent minority status within the union.
Regarding the legality of secession, this is a VERY thorny legal issue argued
for over a century and while there are scholars who would agree with your
assessment, they are pretty firmly in the minority and you can't just ignore
the other side-- your position leaves too many unanswered questions. Secession
is clearly not dealt with in our nation's legal documents, but law has never
been restricted to what is on paper and the very MEANING of secession is
unclear. Just a few examples, it is not within the power of one state to
prohibit someone from another state to aquire property or relocate to that
state-- a state must recognise the citizenship of any US citizen and no legal
action at the state level can void that right. Secession necessarily voids the
right. So then how is secession legal? Federal law certainly superceeded state
law at that time-- secession is a state action that would negate that--
clearly illegal. State actions engaging in relations with foriegn powers were
illegal-- secession is a state action, but such relations are inherent in
independent states and affirmed by US courts, so how could a state legally act
to become independent.
Ultimately I fall back to the line given Ben Franklin in the play "1776" :
"Surely you know that 'revolution' is always legal in the first person-- such
as 'our revolution'; it is only in the third person-- 'their revolution' that
it becomes illegal"
(on a personal note, I must contend that the very concept of "states rights"
is a STUPID idea and the absolute bane of American politics throughout our
history-- "United States" what a way to set up a country!-- IMHO. From the
multicameral legislature on, its been the source of nearly all our country's
headaches.)
On the other hand, if we conceed the legality of secession, I am reminded of
the end of Gore Vidal's novel _Lincoln_. Some years after the assasination,
one of the book's main characters is asked who he would rank as our greatest
president. He answers "Lincoln". When asked why he wouldn't say "Washington",
he replies (I'm paraphrasing) "because Lincoln was wrong, the South had every
legal right to seceed and he stopped them anyway."
>
Justin Bacon
>Spoken like a true idealogue. A shame you don't have any facts
>to back up any of those claims. Banning slavery wasn't even an issue
>in the North until 1863, and wasn't outlawed in the North until
>much later than that. They found that the issue gave them better PR
>than they ever had hoped for, especially in England, and subsequently
>did as much soviet style retconning as possible to make it look like
>that was the justification for everything.
1. Banning was very much an issue in the North prior to 1863. To suggest
otherwise shows an ignorance of hundreds of years of history, the Constitution,
and the debate surrounding the Declaration of Independence.
2. Lincoln did not support the outlawing of slavery for a very long time
because he desperately wanted to hold the Union together -- outlawing slavery
would only make it an absolute certainty that no resolution could be reached
between the North and the South. It was only after total war was already an
assured outcome that the Emancipation Act was passed into law (and then only as
a blackmail tool against the rebelling states).
Justin Bacon
tr...@prairie.lakes.com
Justin Bacon
>South Carolina's secession, and the secession of all the states following
>that
>secession, were PERFECTLY LEGAL under the laws of the United States at that
>time.
Although you ignored my earlier post I'll sum it up for you again: You're
wrong. The Constitution contains several provisions which make it clear that
secession is not an option. South Carolina, along with the other states,
violated several other provisions of the Constituion as well in their act of
secession.
Justin Bacon
tr...@prairie.lakes.com
BRETNTRACI
No you're wrong.
Please quote the provisions and I'll gladly respond.
BRETNTRACI
>> I'll repeat part of my last post:
>that
>> secession, were PERFECTLY LEGAL under the laws of the United States at that
>> time.
>
>flurry of handwaving.
Uh, no I have explained it numberous times, there were no federal laws
forbiding secession. Which means (as per the Constitution) that the power goes
to the individual states and the people.
Thus it was up to the *state* to make a decision. They decided to leave. Thus
it was legal.
>> What Lincoln did was nothing short of totalitarian dictatorship - all
>> that hoopla about 'preserving the union' was nothing but a bunch of
>propaganda
>
>Now you're teetering on the brink of madness.
No I'm not Lincoln believed in Manifest Destiney. That was the true motive.
>
>And if Lincoln wasn't trying to preserve the Union, what in God's name
>was he doing?
<sigh> read above...
>> - ditto for the 'freeing the slaves'. The only reason Lincoln decided to
>free
>> slaves was to keep the border states (Kentucky, Maryland and one other)
>from
>> joining the South, which they were about to do because the North was in the
>> WRONG.
>
>Utterly imaginary, especially since Kentucky and Maryland were _slave_
>states. If they were about to secede for no reason, why on earth should
>it discourage them when he _gave_ them a reason? The remaining
>traditional "border state" is West Virginia, which damned well wasn't
>going to join the Confederacy.
Just becasue there was slavery in a state did not mean that it was a "slave
state" there was slavery much farther north too.
>
>> The whole reason the south wanted to secede in the first place was because
>the
>> north was monopolizing policy decisions that were destroying the south's
>> strength, and effectively making the southern states subject to the
>northern
>> decisions.
>
>The North increased in power before the war because the South was
>hysterically committed to a social structure in which labor was done by
>the uneducated and the educated lived on their backs.
Uh no. The *whole* country did and does work from this point of view. Casting
it off *solely* on pre-Civil War South is laughable.
John W. Kennedy
> Uh, no I have explained it numberous times, there were no federal laws
> forbiding secession. Which means (as per the Constitution) that the power goes
> to the individual states and the people.
> Thus it was up to the *state* to make a decision. They decided to leave. Thus
> it was legal.
You obviously don't know a damn thing about law. The Constitution is
not and never was a set of axioms. It is a set of particular doctrines
and strictures to be applied in conjunction with the established
principles of English Common Law.
> >> What Lincoln did was nothing short of totalitarian dictatorship - all
> >> that hoopla about 'preserving the union' was nothing but a bunch of
> >propaganda
> >
> >Now you're teetering on the brink of madness.
>
> No I'm not Lincoln believed in Manifest Destiney. That was the true motive.
The so-called doctrine of "Manifest Destiny" had nothing to do with the
issue one way or the other.
And yet again you are pretending not to notice that secession came
before Lincoln even took office.
> >Utterly imaginary, especially since Kentucky and Maryland were _slave_
> >states. If they were about to secede for no reason, why on earth should
> >it discourage them when he _gave_ them a reason? The remaining
> >traditional "border state" is West Virginia, which damned well wasn't
> >going to join the Confederacy.
>
> Just becasue there was slavery in a state did not mean that it was a "slave
> state" there was slavery much farther north too.
No there wasn't. Look, if you've reached the point that you're willing
to tell lies about ascertainable facts, there is no point whatever in
continuing this.
> >The North increased in power before the war because the South was
> >hysterically committed to a social structure in which labor was done by
> >the uneducated and the educated lived on their backs.
>
> Uh no. The *whole* country did and does work from this point of view. Casting
> it off *solely* on pre-Civil War South is laughable.
Actually, I guess I have heard that a few southern states didn't require
sending children to school within living memory, but it's been a long
time, and as far as I know it was only in the south.
Oops! I forgot Kansas. Sorry, you're partly right. Kansas doesn't
require educating children at the moment. (Still that's better than
when Tennessee actually made it illegal to educate children.)
Mena Ryan
many times I put it in my kill file under the original title, it keeps
showing up. Please continue...
Thomas Fitzgerald Van Horne wrote:
>
> In article <19990825192902...@ng-fe1.aol.com>, bretn...@aol.com (BRETNTRACI) wrote:
> >>The Confederate cause was slavery, pure and simple. Not even pure
> >>slavery but extending slavery to the rest of the country.
> >
> >Slavery was wrong *but* the South was right. It was about states rights.
> >I'll repeat part of my last post:
> >South Carolina's secession, and the secession of all the states following that
> >secession, were PERFECTLY LEGAL under the laws of the United States at that
> >time. What Lincoln did was nothing short of totalitarian dictatorship - all
> >that hoopla about 'preserving the union' was nothing but a bunch of propaganda
> >- ditto for the 'freeing the slaves'.
> ...
> > I'm not sure what percentage of votes the southern states had to have to
> >legally decide on secession, but I do know that there was no law prohibiting
> >secession thus it fell to the States to decide (per the general STRUCTURE of
> >the governemnt), but I do know that EVERY LAST ONE of them did it legally.
> > The whole reason the south wanted to secede in the first place was because the
> >north was monopolizing policy decisions that were destroying the south's
> >strength, and effectively making the southern states subject to the northern
> >decisions. Slavery had nothing to do with the war until the war was already
> >**three years old** - it was all money and politics.
> >Sorry to keep repeating myself but 've been waging this one in another thread.
>
> While its wrong to say that the Condederate cause was slavery, pure and
> simple, and it is correct to say that the critical issue was one of "state's
> rights" at least in its broader sense, it verges on the nonsensical to say
> that "that hoopla about 'preserving the union' was nothing but a bunch of
BRETNTRACI
>simple, and it is correct to say that the critical issue was one of "state's
>rights" at least in its broader sense, it verges on the nonsensical to say
>that "that hoopla about 'preserving the union' was nothing but a bunch of
>propaganda". And if slavery had nothing to do with the war, it certainly had
everything to do with the reason for the war.
Lincoln used the 'preserving the union'
>propaganda to cover his real motive Manifest Destiney. He believed that it was
God's will that *his* country was going to cover the entire land mass. If the
South left that would be a tough one to get around.
>
>It is also correct to say that "it was all money and politics", but then for
>what issue of public interest would that statement be false? Politics covers
>
>the decision of what laws will govern a people. Laws have no existence
>without politics-- that's what politics be (which people seem to have
>forgotten somehow).
No there is politics and there is politics and you know waht the difference is
don't pretend you don't
Nope your wrong. Once they left. Itw ould have been like another country. We
can still go to Canada or Mexico so they whole move and buy property thing
doesn't really hold up. Maybe I'm misunderstanding.
>Ultimately I fall back to the line given Ben Franklin in the play "1776" :
>"Surely you know that 'revolution' is always legal in the first person-- such
>
>as 'our revolution'; it is only in the third person-- 'their revolution' that
>
>it becomes illegal"
>
>(on a personal note, I must contend that the very concept of "states rights"
>is a STUPID idea and the absolute bane of American politics throughout our
>history-- "United States" what a way to set up a country!-- IMHO. From the
>multicameral legislature on, its been the source of nearly all our country's
>headaches.)
I disagree entirely. The crooked politicians have been the bane and source of
headaches. States should have the power. Florida should be able to do what's
best for Florida and Washington (state) do what's best for Washington.
>
>On the other hand, if we conceed the legality of secession, I am reminded of
>the end of Gore Vidal's novel _Lincoln_. Some years after the assasination,
>one of the book's main characters is asked who he would rank as our greatest
>president. He answers "Lincoln". When asked why he wouldn't say
>"Washington",
>he replies (I'm paraphrasing) "because Lincoln was wrong, the South had
>every
>legal right to seceed and he stopped them anyway."
>
Yes, I do agree with that quote. In the long run Lincoln did a good thing as
far as our country is today. But it was still legally wand morally worng at the
time. It is quite a conudrum.
It's like saying Japan was right to bomb Pearl Harbor. If they hadn't we
wouldn't have entered the war and thus developed the bomb that ended the war.
So they were right but not right. ouch...
Philip R. Columbus
only one "answer" and that any other point of view is caused by either
ignorance or evil. My understanding is that there was a continuum of
causes; states' rights, economics, slavery, power in the US Congress,
etc, etc etc. To determine what "caused" the Civil War is impossible to
attribute to one and only one agent.
And and interesting take on secession, a former co-worker of mine was
from Georgia. He noted that during the Civil War, some north Georgia
counties where slavery wasn't common voted to seceed from Georgia and
remain part of the Union! He noted that Georgia really couldn't say too
much since that would have undercut their rationale for seceeding from
the USA.
Just something to think about.
Phil Columbus
philipc...@home.com
John W. Kennedy wrote in message <37C442C5...@ibm.net>...
>WWS wrote:
>>
>> "John W. Kennedy" wrote:
>> >
>> > Thomas Bagwell wrote:
>> > > "the Confederate cause"? The "Confederate cause" was about
states'
>> > > rights, and a reaction to shifting economics. If you're
referring to
>> > > slavery, that was only very peripherally related to the Civil
War, and
>> > > then mainly towards the end.
>> >
>> > The Confederate cause was slavery, pure and simple. Not even pure
>> > slavery but extending slavery to the rest of the country. That's
why
>> > they resorted to outright treason when a president was elected (and
>> > there is some evidence that Lincoln's election was actually rigged
by
>> > southern extremists) who had done nothing more than oppose
extension of
>> > slavery into new territories.
>> >
>> > Until the South is willing to admit they were wrong, this issue
will
>> > never die.
>>
>> Spoken like a true idealogue. A shame you don't have any facts
>> to back up any of those claims. Banning slavery wasn't even an issue
>> in the North until 1863, and wasn't outlawed in the North until
>> much later than that.
>
>Fascinating. Absolutely fascinating. I say the war was about Southern
>ambition to extend slavery into the rest of the nation, and you reply,
>"No, it wasn't about abolition at all." Uh-huh.
>
>The statement: "Banning slavery wasn't even an issue in the North
until
>1863," is cute all by itself, too. Let's see, when did Lincoln first
>issue the Emancipation Proclamation? September 22, 1862. Ah, but
let's
>look further. "Wasn't even an issue," forsooth? When was Elijah
>Lovejoy murdered? November 7, 1837. And let's not even bring up
>Garrison.
>
>Not to mention that it was the South that initiated secession and that
>it was the South that started the war, which makes all this poking at
>Northern purity of intention a bit off the point.
>
Pelzo63
>To determine what "caused" the Civil War is impossible to
>attribute to one and only one agent.
it was a black haired, well dressed man who kept asking all the leaders of the
union what they wanted. :-) (yay! back on topic!)
>And and interesting take on secession, a former co-worker of mine was
>from Georgia. He noted that during the Civil War, some north Georgia
>counties where slavery wasn't common voted to seceed from Georgia and
>remain part of the Union! He noted that Georgia really couldn't say too
>much since that would have undercut their rationale for seceeding from
>the USA.
on a similar note, i remember about a year or 2 ago, one of the Counties on the
PA/Ohio border voted(or wnated to) seceed from the state it was in, and join
the other(i don't remember if it was a PA county wnating to be in ohio, or an
ohio county wanting to be in PA), but either the vote was not successful, or
the issue was dropped, because no counties changed hands. i belive it was over
school taxes or something similar.
and i don't feel like getting into the whole civil war discussion. :-)
note: i changed the subject line, like many have asked.(little too late now
though. :-)
--Chris AOL/AIM--pelzo63
http://members.aol.com/pelzo63/welcome.html
"He doesn't know whether to cry, or wind his watch!"--Mike Lange
Podkayne Fries
>
>
>And and interesting take on secession, a former co-worker of mine was
>from Georgia. He noted that during the Civil War, some north Georgia
>counties where slavery wasn't common voted to seceed from Georgia and
>remain part of the Union!
Here's an interesting factoid: many residents of Gen.Sherman's home town
were against the war. One local paper took a strong antiwar stance and
openly sided with the South.
--
Regards, Podkayne Fries
"Newgroup invasion is the Internet's closest known
equivalent to cow tipping." - Bryan Lambert
BRETNTRACI
>> Uh, no I have explained it numberous times, there were no federal laws
>> forbiding secession. Which means (as per the Constitution) that the power
>goes
>> to the individual states and the people.
>> Thus it was up to the *state* to make a decision. They decided to leave.
>Thus
>> it was legal.
>
>You obviously don't know a damn thing about law.
I have several Law school instructors who would disagree.
The Constitution is
>not and never was a set of axioms. It is a set of particular doctrines
>and strictures to be applied in conjunction with the established
>principles of English Common Law.
>
And it's raining in Mexico. SOunds nice but does not apply here.
>> >> What Lincoln did was nothing short of totalitarian dictatorship - all
>> >> that hoopla about 'preserving the union' was nothing but a bunch of
>> >propaganda
>> >
>> >Now you're teetering on the brink of madness.
>>
>> No I'm not Lincoln believed in Manifest Destiney. That was the true motive.
>
>The so-called doctrine of "Manifest Destiny" had nothing to do with the
>issue one way or the other.
>
>And yet again you are pretending not to notice that secession came
>before Lincoln even took office.
Again, sounds nice but were talking about Lincoln actions later.
>
>> >Utterly imaginary, especially since Kentucky and Maryland were _slave_
>> >states. If they were about to secede for no reason, why on earth should
>> >it discourage them when he _gave_ them a reason? The remaining
>> >traditional "border state" is West Virginia, which damned well wasn't
>> >going to join the Confederacy.
>>
>> Just becasue there was slavery in a state did not mean that it was a "slave
>> state" there was slavery much farther north too.
>
>No there wasn't. Look, if you've reached the point that you're willing
>to tell lies about ascertainable facts, there is no point whatever in
>continuing this.
What is the lie? I don't see one.
>
>> >The North increased in power before the war because the South was
>> >hysterically committed to a social structure in which labor was done by
>> >the uneducated and the educated lived on their backs.
>>
>> Uh no. The *whole* country did and does work from this point of view.
>Casting
>> it off *solely* on pre-Civil War South is laughable.
>
>Actually, I guess I have heard that a few southern states didn't require
>sending children to school within living memory, but it's been a long
>time, and as far as I know it was only in the south.
My comment was to make the point that all labor is generally from the
uneducated pool and benifits the educated. It is happening today. Who digs the
ditch (the uneducated manual laborer) Who reaps the reward from the ditch, (who
ever has the money and the education that earned them that money) It's an age
onld story. Live with it. Go twist someone else's words.
>
>Oops! I forgot Kansas. Sorry, you're partly right. Kansas doesn't
>require educating children at the moment. (Still that's better than
>when Tennessee actually made it illegal to educate children.)
And today it has one of the best educational systems in the country.
WWS
Podkayne Fries wrote:
>
> >philipc...@home.com wrote:
> >
> >
> >And and interesting take on secession, a former co-worker of mine was
> >from Georgia. He noted that during the Civil War, some north Georgia
> >counties where slavery wasn't common voted to seceed from Georgia and
> >remain part of the Union!
Another, possibly the most famous occurrence of this was in Jones County,
Mississippi (county seat: Laurel). They didn't feel that they should
send anybody off to fight anywhere, preferring instead to keep everyone
at home and fight off the looters and drifters that were causing a lot
of trouble in the South with all the fighting men gone. They seceded
from the State of Mississippi and proclaimed themselves "The Free State
of Jones County", and didn't want to have anything to do with anyone.
Miss. made some efforts to bring them back into the fold and collect
taxes, and even sent some military forces their way to try to forcibly
stop the secession. (claiming it was the work of criminals who had taken
over the county govm't) But the area was never really successfully
re-taken, and it's still a pretty renegade area even today. (They
still like to call themselves "the Free State of Jones County")
>
> Here's an interesting factoid: many residents of Gen.Sherman's home town
> were against the war. One local paper took a strong antiwar stance and
> openly sided with the South.
A good reason that McClellan looked like he could very possibly beat
Lincoln in the 1864 election - Sherman himself was credited with
saving Lincoln's re-election campaign with his capture of Savannah (iirc)
at the most crucial moment. Lincoln was never an extremely popular
president until after his death - the anti-war riots in New York City,
1863 were more violent and vicious than any anti-war riots the 1960's
saw, and only ended when Lincoln ordered Federal troops to shoot all
rioters on sight, resulting in over 300 dead civilians (mostly Irish).
And people think Kent State was ugly.
--
__________________________________________________WWS_____________
.
WWS
"John W. Kennedy" wrote:
>
> BRETNTRACI wrote:
>
> > Slavery was wrong *but* the South was right. It was about states rights.
> > I'll repeat part of my last post: South Carolina's secession, and the
> > secession of all the states following that secession, were PERFECTLY
> > LEGAL under the laws of the United States at that time.
>
> flurry of handwaving.
His "flurry of handwriting" was quite good, especially where he covered
the 10th amendment. I imagine you ignored that part because you have
no response to his argument.
>
> > What Lincoln did was nothing short of totalitarian dictatorship - all
> > that hoopla about 'preserving the union' was nothing but a bunch of
> > propaganda
>
> Now you're teetering on the brink of madness. Kindly observe the order
> in which things happened. Southern states announced their (frequently
> illegal even in terms of the particular states' laws, considering that
> secession was often "voted" on by extralegal and nonrepresentative
> bodies) intent to secede _solely_ on the grounds that "nigger-lover"
> Lincoln had been elected - and with no other offense from him but his
> persistently maintaining that _other_ states and territories had the
> right to make slavery illegal within their own borders. The
> secessionists would not be satisfied until slavery was imposed on the
> entire nation. Read their own speeches.
>
> And if Lincoln wasn't trying to preserve the Union, what in God's name
> was he doing?
He destroyed half of the Union in order to save it. Kind of like the
Vietnam war era logic of destroying the villages in order to save them.
It wasn't his motives as much as his methods that were so questionable.
Why did the draft have to be imposed, to send unwilling poor men to die
for the Federal Govm't? The Federal Govm't never had this power before -
Lincoln created this power in order to prosecute the war. Just like he
blatantly suspended Habeus Corpus and all other civil liberties for any
suspected southern sympathizers in the *North*, not just in the south.
Coincidentally, many of these happened to be political opponents of his.
He was the one who authorized the use of Federal Troops to shoot down
rioters in New York, and who directed Sherman to burn and terrorize as
much of the civilian populations of Georgia and South Carolina as he
could. Whether or not you think these actions were necessary or not,
they were more the actions of a dictator than of anything else. In fact,
no other President in American history has ever come close to exercising
the powers that Lincoln took for his own.
>
> > - ditto for the 'freeing the slaves'. The only reason Lincoln decided to free
> > slaves was to keep the border states (Kentucky, Maryland and one other) from
> > joining the South, which they were about to do because the North was in the
> > WRONG.
>
> Utterly imaginary, especially since Kentucky and Maryland were _slave_
> states. If they were about to secede for no reason, why on earth should
> it discourage them when he _gave_ them a reason? The remaining
> traditional "border state" is West Virginia, which damned well wasn't
> going to join the Confederacy.
This is a mistake - West Virginia was a creation of the Federal Govm't
during the war. Up until the war started, it was part of the sovereign
territory of Virginia - it only became a separate state because Federal
troops were able to occupy it due to it's remoteness from Richmond. The
other border state that was truly in flux was Missouri.
The reason this discouraged Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri from
seceding is because of the most important point which has been
ignored up until now - the Emancipation proclamation *Only* applied
to states that had seceded. As long as Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri
stayed in the Union, slavery was going to continue to be Perfectly Legal.
And was, until after the war was over. (If they'd realized how they were
being played for fools, they probably would have joined the Confederacy)
>
> > The whole reason the south wanted to secede in the first place was because the
> > north was monopolizing policy decisions that were destroying the south's
> > strength, and effectively making the southern states subject to the northern
> > decisions.
>
> The North increased in power before the war because the South was
> hysterically committed to a social structure in which labor was done by
> the uneducated and the educated lived on their backs.
>
Extremely poor analysis, since the vast majority of whites living in the
South not only were poorly educated but also were far too poor to own
any slaves of their own. The majority of the population consisted of
small farmers with small plots of land, with some shipping and trading
near the coasts - exactly like the rest of America in the first half of
the 19th century. The North was increasing in power because they were
the first to reap the fruits of increasing industrialization. Ironically,
this was made possible by the huge waves of uneducated immigrants who
would work all day like slaves for extremely low wages. (And who then
spent their wages at the company store and to pay for company housing)
The first great waves of immigrants had come from the Irish fleeing the
1848 potato famine, and Germans fleeing the 1848 expansion of Prussia.
The immigrants came primarily to the North because that's where all the
biggest ports were.
(It is bitterly humorous to read both northern and English accounts of
the time debating whether the Irish were capable of any of the higher
thought functions, and whether they had a built in (we would say genetic)
propensity to be lazy, drunk, thieves, liars - in fact they were described
in exactly the same terms that blacks in the south were described. No
proper New Yorker would dream of letting his daughter marry an Irishman.
Moral attitudes towards race and the labor force were no more noble in the
North than they were in the South, except for the Abolitionists who had
about as much following as the Greens do today.)
How did this lead to a difference in national goals between North and
South? England at the time was committed to a free trade policy, and
was the biggest market for goods in the world. It did not take the
factory owners long to realize that a mercantilist policy was in their
best interests - they would make a huge amount of manufactured goods
from primarily pirated English designs, export everything they could
make to England to sell at really cheap prices because of their cheap
labor, and begin to dominate the English market, much the same way that
the Japanese moved into the American automobile market in the 70's.
They only required the Government to keep in place a policy of high
tariffs on imported goods - this not only gave them a guaranteed market
here in America, but also allowed them to charge high enough prices
for their goods here so that they could continue to support the market
dumping they were doing in England in an attempt to dominate the market
for low price manufactured goods of all kinds.
The South, however, was still a primarily agrarian area. Their entire
economy, beyond subsistence agriculture, consisted of what kinds of
crops they could produce for export. Everything else they needed in
the way of manufactured goods needed to be imported. The imposition
of tariffs did not do anything to increase *their* income at all,
and yet it increased their cost of living a great deal, because the
prices of all kinds of manufactured goods began to jump dramatically.
This move affected the plantation owners the *Least* - they could
produce most of what they needed for a plantation to go on running on
site, and in fact they had the wealth to weather a sustained increase
in prices - but this increase in general prices was absolutely devastating
for the average poor white farmer who couldn't make all his own clothes,
his own shoes, or any of the things he needed to get by. This general
degradation of living standards which the average southerner saw was
only going to continue or get worse was more responsible than anything
else for the climate that led to the war. Once the union was dissolved
and the tariffs disappeared, the cost of living was going to drop
dramatically for every farmer in the South. Whether that actually
would have happened is beside the point - the point is that they sincerely
believed that, and believed that they were being used to make profits
for northern industrialists. They didn't want to see that go on.
--
__________________________________________________WWS_____________
The Reverend Jacob Corbin
WWS wrote:
>
> A good reason that McClellan looked like he could very possibly beat
> Lincoln in the 1864 election - Sherman himself was credited with
> saving Lincoln's re-election campaign with his capture of Savannah (iirc)
> at the most crucial moment.
Right idea, wrong city...it was the general's victory in Atlanta that gave
Lincoln the election. Savannah was the city Sherman jokingly offered the
President as his "Christmas present."
Jacob
The Reverend Jacob Corbin
chase here...
WWS wrote:
> "John W. Kennedy" wrote:
> >
> > The North increased in power before the war because the South was
> > hysterically committed to a social structure in which labor was done by
> > the uneducated and the educated lived on their backs.
> >
>
> Extremely poor analysis, since the vast majority of whites living in the
> South not only were poorly educated but also were far too poor to own
> any slaves of their own.
Whoa! Hold your horses, big guy--he said the work was done by "the uneducated," a
classification which certainly includes poor whites. So to me it looks like you're
both in agreement on this point. More on this below...
In no particular order, here are my feelings on the subject:
1) The question of whether or not secession is legal is a thorny one that holds about
as much interest for me as a treatise on Shaker furniture. What it boils down to is
that, de facto, the Southern states chose to become an independent entity. And when
that entity committed an act of war against the United States--by firing on Fort Sumter
without provocation--the President, as Commander-in-Chief, was fully within his rights
to prosecute the war. BRETNTRACI's insistence that the war was "illegal" is
outrageous; either the South had a right to secede, and thus Lincoln had a right to
treat them the way he would any other belligerent foreign power, or they were U.S.
citizens committing treason, in which case the Federal Goverment was obligated to put
them down.
2) People love to get misty-eyed about the South and their wonderful spirit of
independence and healthy distrust of federalism. What they generally don't bring up is
that the people of the South--both white and black--were essentially a servile people
who'd been conned by the wealthy landowning interests into maintaining a system of
authoritarian hereditary pseudo-aristocracy that was akin to what we'd *already* fought
a war to get rid of. Certainly the uneducated white farmers were hard-hit by Northern
mercantilism; however, they wouldn't have been uneducated white farmers in the first
place if their rulers hadn't spent decades trying to keep the ol' historical calendar
firmly set at Anno Domini 1820. And we won't even get into the sheer, balls-out
hypocrisy of fighting tyrannical "big guvmint" whilst living daily among millions of
people accorded fewer rights than the average piece of livestock.
3) Speaking of slavery (you knew I'd end up here eventually, didn't you?)....Obviously
the war was not "about" slavery--the causes, as usual, were plentiful and not always
readily obvious. Yes, there was economics; yes, there was politics. But the cold,
hard fact is that slavery--which, to any observer unecumbered by bullshit postmodern
moral relitivism, was an incalculable evil--was ended in the US for good as a direct
consequence of the war. I can't overemphasize the importance of this fact. After
almost a century, the Civil War finally gave Americans as a people the chance to live
up to the promise of all those silly flowery phrases in the Declaration and the
Constitition--"all men are created equal" and such.
4) Everything else is more or less academic.
Jacob
feel my pain at http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/shirley/272/
David Moore
<jaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>3) Speaking of slavery (you knew I'd end up here eventually, didn't you?)....Obviously
>the war was not "about" slavery--the causes, as usual, were plentiful and not always
>readily obvious. Yes, there was economics; yes, there was politics. But the cold,
>hard fact is that slavery--which, to any observer unecumbered by bullshit postmodern
>moral relitivism, was an incalculable evil--was ended in the US for good as a direct
>consequence of the war. I can't overemphasize the importance of this fact. After
>almost a century, the Civil War finally gave Americans as a people the chance to live
>up to the promise of all those silly flowery phrases in the Declaration and the
>Constitition--"all men are created equal" and such.
There was an opinion piece in last Sunday's Houston
Chronicle which caught my eye because of this thread
(I meant to bring it in, but lost it. Darn. If I stumble
across it, I'll post the reference. )
The gist was that the articles of secession for most
Confederate states explicitly mentioned slavery as a primary
issue. They posited the belief that the honor and freedom,
to say nothing of the economy, of the South depended on the
institution of slavery. Poor whites fought for it, because
after all, if there was no slavery, they'd be just as badly
off as blacks, would actually be competing with blacks for
their spot in the pecking order.
As for blacks fighting on the confederate side, Nonsense!,
declared this writer. There were black slaves attending on
their white masters, and black slaves belonging to the Army
doing non-combat work, but there were no blacks, and
certainly no slaves, in Confederate uniform. Towards the end
of the war, a few states actually considered black soldiers,
but never implemented the idea. They explicitly mentioned,
in their written debates, the problem that if blacks were
enlisted, that would mean that they were as good as whites,
and that in turn would invalidate the moral justification,
the whole reason for invoking state's rights and seceding in
the first place: that blacks were not fully human, and were
put on Earth by God to act as slaves.
--
Dave Moore == djm...@uh.edu == I speak for me.
"It is our blasphemy that makes us great,
and that the gods secretly admire in us."
Roger Zelazny
The Reverend Jacob Corbin
David Moore wrote:
>
> There was an opinion piece in last Sunday's Houston
> Chronicle which caught my eye because of this thread
> (I meant to bring it in, but lost it. Darn. If I stumble
> across it, I'll post the reference. )
>
> The gist was that the articles of secession for most
> Confederate states explicitly mentioned slavery as a primary
> issue. They posited the belief that the honor and freedom,
> to say nothing of the economy, of the South depended on the
> institution of slavery. Poor whites fought for it, because
> after all, if there was no slavery, they'd be just as badly
> off as blacks, would actually be competing with blacks for
> their spot in the pecking order.
Exactly! We've got a ton of these latter-day libertarians and state's-rightists who've
convinced themselves that the South actually had the right idea, and "oh, that whole ten
million people in bondage thing, well that's just terribly exaggerated, and not really
germane anyway, cause not many people owned slaves, etc., etc."
But you can't divest a discussion of the Civil War of a discussion of slavery. You
just can't. It's intellectually dishonest and just plain stoopid to boot.
Jacob
BRETNTRACI
>state's-rightists who've
>convinced themselves that the South actually had the right idea, and "oh,
>that whole ten
>million people in bondage thing, well that's just terribly exaggerated, and
>not really
>germane anyway, cause not many people owned slaves, etc., etc."
>
> But you can't divest a discussion of the Civil War of a discussion of
>slavery. You
>just can't. It's intellectually dishonest and just plain stoopid to boot.
What a bunch of hooey! Slavery is/was wrong but IT was up to the states to
decide for them selves and when the federal governement stepped in it was
*illegal*
Period. The south was right in what they did *legally* Moral issues are
altogether different. You can easily transplant the issue of slavery to
something else the end results would have been the same.
Thomas Fitzgerald Van Horne
>>It is also correct to say that "it was all money and politics", but then for
>>what issue of public interest would that statement be false? Politics covers
>>the decision of what laws will govern a people. Laws have no existence
>>without politics-- that's what politics be (which people seem to have
>>forgotten somehow).
>
>No there is politics and there is politics and you know waht the difference is
>don't pretend you don't
In that case-- NO! it definitely wasn't politics! (but it was, of course,
politics). Or do you mean Zathrus. Pronounced different. Zathrus.... Zathrus.
You see the difference.
Real response. What you are identifying as the scummy, disgusting,
self-interested manuevering for personal advantage that corrupts the
high-minded pursuit of a peoples destiny is the MECHANISM of that high-minded
pursuit. Never in history has there been any sort of separation of the kind
you are implying-- Ben Franklin (about as high-minded as you're going to get)
and his Tory son (royal Gov. of New Jersey) were at war and estranged (Ben
being offended that his son was attempting to have Ben hanged-- his son being
imprisoned by Ben's compatriots) but they still put their differences aside
enough to rig a sweetheart, influence-brokered land deal over what is now
southern Ohio. People's high-minded ideals (and most people in politics have
some variety of these or another) continually war and struggle with personal
ambition, divided loyalties, and necessary compromise (Franklin brokered the
first of the great Slave compromises [slave-counting for representation
purposes] during the constitutional convention-- willing to support anything
that would get a workable system of national government-- pure politics).
>>Regarding the legality of secession, this is a VERY thorny legal issue
>>...the very MEANING of secession is
>>unclear. Just a few examples, it is not within the power of one state to
>>prohibit someone from another state to aquire property or relocate to that
>>state-- a state must recognise the citizenship of any US citizen and no legal
>>action at the state level can void that right.
...
>>
>Nope your wrong. Once they left. Itw ould have been like another country. We
>can still go to Canada or Mexico so they whole move and buy property thing
>doesn't really hold up. Maybe I'm misunderstanding.
>
Canada can keep you out because they don't like your face. The power is
"inherent" in the existance of independant states. Georgia cannot do that to
a citizen of New York (legally). Georgia cannot pass a law saying a New
Yorker cannot enter Georgia -- it has no legal power to do so. In essence, a
vote by a state to seceed is a STATE vote to overturn ALL federal laws
within the state-- it has no legal power to do this. The question of
secession would be on firmer (but still VERY shaky) ground if, in addition to
the state vote, there had been a vote of the national legislature to approve
the secession of that state (although the courts would probably invalidate
it-- no rules for removing states, only for adding them).
Also, a number of southern states were created by the federal
legislature out of territory ceeded the U.S. by other nations. The nation as
a whole legally "owned" the land (in eminent domain or something) on which the
state existed-- the people living there had no LEGAL right to take it out from
under US sovereignty. (ACTUAL right is determined by contest of arms-- there
being no higher LEGAL authority than a nation, or, sometimes, the community of
nations [ie: piracy])
The United States, by the way, has all kinds of wierd powers and
obligations that are not mentioned in the constitution because they are
"inherent" in the nature of soveriegn states (and the world's courts say so).
Any provision of the constitution can be over-ridden by a treaty, for example.
Also, as of a 1940's decision by justice Black, any agreement entered into by
the President (because he's sole elected representative of all the people)
with another head-of-state (exectutive agreement) constitutes a treaty (none
of that "Senate ratification" stuff needed). In case you're keeping track,
that means that the President has legally unlimited power to do anything.
Bill Saxbe, republican senator from Ohio in the 1960's, tried to get a
constitutional ammendment going to do something about this, but it never went
anywhere.
>>On the other hand, if we conceed the legality of secession, I am reminded of
>>the end of Gore Vidal's novel _Lincoln_. Some years after the assasination,
>>one of the book's main characters is asked who he would rank as our greatest
>>president. He answers "Lincoln". When asked why he wouldn't say
>>"Washington",
>>he replies (I'm paraphrasing) "because Lincoln was wrong, the South had
>>every
>>legal right to seceed and he stopped them anyway."
>>
>Yes, I do agree with that quote. In the long run Lincoln did a good thing as
>far as our country is today. But it was still legally wand morally worng at the
>time. It is quite a conudrum.
>It's like saying Japan was right to bomb Pearl Harbor. If they hadn't we
>wouldn't have entered the war and thus developed the bomb that ended the war.
>So they were right but not right. ouch...
>
Not to bring this back to B5, but I've always seen Sheridan as a remarkably
Lincoln-ish figure-- faced with the complete collapse of the rule of law that
he lived by and doing anything he had to to put it right.
WWS
Thomas Fitzgerald Van Horne wrote:
>
> In article <19990829090657...@ng-bg1.aol.com>, bretn...@aol.com (BRETNTRACI) wrote:
>
> The United States, by the way, has all kinds of wierd powers and
> obligations that are not mentioned in the constitution because they are
> "inherent" in the nature of soveriegn states (and the world's courts say so).
That is a direct contradiction of the 10th amendment. I don't dispute
that is is the current status quo and the nature of the system we live
under, but it is quite literally unconstitutional. One of the things
that the Civil War established was the principle that numbers and raw
power are more important than the Constitution.
> Any provision of the constitution can be over-ridden by a treaty, for example.
> Also, as of a 1940's decision by justice Black, any agreement entered into by
> the President (because he's sole elected representative of all the people)
> with another head-of-state (exectutive agreement) constitutes a treaty (none
> of that "Senate ratification" stuff needed).
I must disagree with that - you're saying that if Bill Clinton goes
to China and signs a treaty agreeing to ban all political parties and
make himself President for Life, and the Chinese agree to it, then
such an agreement would be perfectly legal and enforceable by US
courts.
I don't think so.
> In case you're keeping track,
> that means that the President has legally unlimited power to do anything.
> Bill Saxbe, republican senator from Ohio in the 1960's, tried to get a
> constitutional ammendment going to do something about this, but it never went
> anywhere.
It wasn't necessary, because it was a silly interpretation of law by
Justice Black that would be overturned if it ever came back to the
Supreme Court today. Which it won't, because it's not enforced
that way.
Case in point - several weeks ago the state of Texas executed a murderer
who was a Canadian citizen. US treaties guarantee that the consulate
will be notified and certain legal procedures followed if a Canadian
citizen faces the death penalty. This never happened, mainly because
the defendant inexplicably hid his Canadian citizenship for years.
The justice dep't filed a brief with the court requesting the execution
be stopped because it was in direct violation of a treaty, and Canada
filed an objection as well. Texas said "Too Bad!" and executed him anyway,
and a Federal Court decision held that only the Federal Govm't was bound
to abide by international treaties, the separate states were not, since
they were not original parties to the agreements. The States must abide
by Federal law, but abiding by treaties is completely voluntary, unless
the state has taken action to write the treaties into state law as well,
which has happened in many instances. (such as international trade relations)
Appeal was made to the Supreme Court - the Supreme Court refused to issue
an injunction or interfere with the legal proceedings, since all procudures
laid out in Texas criminal law had been followed.
It may also be interesting to realize that the probable next President
personally approved the execution order.
--
__________________________________________________WWS_____________
In case you're curious, the defendant had tied an old lady to a
chair and stabbed her 40 odd times, so he got what he deserved.
David Moore
and finally found it. For the sake of closure, here it is,
although I seriously doubt anyone cares anymore, and if they
do, they discussing it in some other forum (would anyone
care to point me in the right direction?)
On 31 Aug 1999 22:48:55 -0600, I, djm...@uh.edu (David
Moore) wrote:
>There was an opinion piece in last Sunday's Houston
>Chronicle which caught my eye because of this thread
>(I meant to bring it in, but lost it. Darn. If I stumble
>across it, I'll post the reference. )
Finally found it.
Clark, Truman R., "History gives lie to myth of black
Confederate soldiers", /Houston Chronicle/, Outlook, p. 4,
29 August 1999.
I can't seem to generate a web address that isn't a long,
ugly search string, and besides, you can't get into the
Chron's archives without a print subscription. (Boo!)
Here's the shortest URL I could make work; note that some
newsreaders might force a line break, so you will have to
cut&paste:
http://www.chron.com/content/archive/search.hts?operation=getdoc&database=1999;&docids=44497;&query=Truman+and+19990829:&user=houston
This fine article is one of the best examples of debunking
I've ever seen, even if it does end up Godwinating itself.
(I'm assuming that Clark isn't just making the whole thing
up, or committing gross out-of-context errors; I wouldn't
know, I'm not a CW historian, or even a buff.)
Here's the key section that puts quit to the idea that
the Civil War was not at its root about slavery:
<quote mode="without permission">
If, as some folks in the 1990s claim, there were already
"thousands" of black troops in the Confederate armies,
why were the leaders of the Confederacy still debating [as
late as three weeks before the end of the war] about whether
or not they should start bringing them in?
The very accurate point made then by opponents of this
legislation was, as one Georgia leader stated, "If slaves
will make good soldiers our whole theory of slavery is
wrong." Southern newspaper editors blasted the idea as
"the very doctrine which the war was commenced to put
down," a "surrender of the essential and distinctive
principle of Southern civilization."
And what was that "essential and distinctive principle of
Southern civilization"? Let's listen to the people of the
times. The vice president of the Confederacy, Alexander
Stephens, said on March 21, 1861, that the Confederacy
was "founded ... its foundations are laid, its cornerstone
rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to
the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior
race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new
government, is the first, in the history of the world, based
on this great physical, philosophical and moral truth."
What was the "very doctrine" which the South had entered
into war to destroy? Let's go to the historical
documents, the words of the people in those times. When
Texas seceded from the Union in March 1861, its
secession declaration was entirely about one subject:
slavery. It said that Thomas Jefferson's words in the
Declaration of Independence in 1776 -- "We hold these truths
to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" --
were "the debasing doctrine of equality of all men,
irrespective of race or color ... a doctrine at war with
nature ... and in violation of the plainest revelations of
Divine Law."
[/quote]
In short, the only "state's right" being defended was
the right to abuse dark-skinned human beings as debased
livestock.
--
Dave Moore == DJM...@UH.EDu == I Speak For Me.
"...what we have here is not merely a one-time
lapse but rather a chronic silliness...."
-- Edward R. Tufte
John W. Kennedy
> <quote mode="without permission">
> If, as some folks in the 1990s claim, there were already
> "thousands" of black troops in the Confederate armies,
> why were the leaders of the Confederacy still debating [as
> late as three weeks before the end of the war] about whether
> or not they should start bringing them in?
I _think_ some black slaveholders in Louisiana (yes, there were some)
joined or formed a militia -- but Louisiana is always odd man out.
Anybody remember the paper-bag episode of "Frank's Place".
Thomas Fitzgerald Van Horne
>> Any provision of the constitution can be over-ridden by a treaty, for
> example.
>> Also, as of a 1940's decision by justice Black, any agreement entered into by
>> the President (because he's sole elected representative of all the people)
>> with another head-of-state (exectutive agreement) constitutes a treaty (none
>> of that "Senate ratification" stuff needed).
>
>I must disagree with that - you're saying that if Bill Clinton goes
>to China and signs a treaty agreeing to ban all political parties and
>make himself President for Life, and the Chinese agree to it, then
>such an agreement would be perfectly legal and enforceable by US
>courts.
>
>I don't think so.
>
Sorry for the second post, but a pertinent further point...
The bit over the "executive agreement is a treaty" nonsense is REAL though.
President Clinton has threatened to make several treaties (the
ratification of which are being held up by Jesse Helms) into "executive
agreements" which have all the legal force of treaties but require no
ratification. This would seem to me to be the clearest possible example of
something "unconstitutional" but it isn't because the Supreme Court says it
isn't (and there is no other reasonable purpose to HAVING a Supreme Court and
their power to say what is and isn't constitutional is now supported by over
200 years of precedent). Apparently the 11th ammendment doesn't forbid
additional powers to the Federal Government, because the Supreme Court says
it doesn't (and ultimately, of course, the majority of citizens and the army
backs up the system of laws including the decisions of the Supreme Court --
as to what happens when it doesn't, see Andy Jackson and the Cherokee).
Thomas Fitzgerald Van Horne
>>
>
> example.
>> Also, as of a 1940's decision by justice Black, any agreement entered into by
>> the President (because he's sole elected representative of all the people)
>> with another head-of-state (exectutive agreement) constitutes a treaty (none
>> of that "Senate ratification" stuff needed).
>
>to China and signs a treaty agreeing to ban all political parties and
>make himself President for Life, and the Chinese agree to it, then
>such an agreement would be perfectly legal and enforceable by US
>courts.
>
>I don't think so.
also agree to put the matter beyond court jurisdiction-- because, you're
right-- this would stand about 1/2 second). And yes; its silly and would never
work and even Nixon didn't try it and if any president did, he'd simply be
declared incompetant due to failed "mental health", and the VP would take
over.
...
>
>Case in point - several weeks ago the state of Texas executed a murderer
>The justice dep't filed a brief with the court requesting the execution
>be stopped because it was in direct violation of a treaty, and Canada
>filed an objection as well. Texas said "Too Bad!" and executed him anyway,
>and a Federal Court decision held that only the Federal Govm't was bound
>to abide by international treaties, the separate states were not, since
>they were not original parties to the agreements.
Yes, the federal government CHOSE not to interfere beyond filing legal briefs
in the matter. But if the executive had decided that the consequences to our
relations with Canada required preventing this execution, then the president
could have, quite legally, sent federal troops into Texas to seize the guy and
bring him out and deliver him in accordance with our treaty (and face
impeachment, lose the next elections, etc.)
The incident demonstrates the virtues of politics-- Clinton
wasn't about to intervene to protect this murderer even at the cost of
Canadian/US relations -- which is probably a fair reading of the sentiment of
the American people. (I do not here judge the wisdom of that sentiment).
The states have no obligation to abide by treaties because they cannot
have any foreign relations-- that is solely reserved to the federal
government because it necessarily affects the country as a whole. That's also
one of the bases of federal supremecy-- an individual state's actions must not
be allowed to get the United States into wars.
BRETNTRACI
>In short, the only "state's right" being defended was
>the right to abuse dark-skinned human beings as debased
>livestock.
No you are wrong. It was not about slavery slavery was not an issue until aoubt
the thrid year of the war. It was about states rights. It was about the
violation of the 10th Ammendment.
People are through bigoted comments from souther leaders up, but htose were
personal views not political ones. Here is a polital one for Jefferson Davis.
""(The South was) forced to forced to take up arms to vindicate the political
rights, the freedom, equality, and State sovereignty which were the heritage
purchased by the blood of our revolutionary sires."
If the issue was really about slavery he would have gotten much farther
appealing to the bigot crackers that permeated the South at the time. Instead
he was speaking 9on this occasion) about *freedom* and *rights.*
>It said that Thomas Jefferson's words in the
>Declaration of Independence in 1776 -- "We hold these truths
>to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" --
Well considering that Jefferson had slaves he didn;t mean black they at the
time were considered property. So buy holding up his words we must look at the
context.
Again I reitterate slavery was wong morally but the was was not about slaver it
was aobut states rights.
BRETNTRACI
Sorry about that last post I get on a tear and forget to proof read for the
typing errors. I also left out a quote relating to slavery as an issue in the
Civil War
This was early in the War -
"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with slavery in the
States where it exhists." Lincoln. In July of 1861 the Union Congress
overwhelmingly endorsed this position. So the North was not fighting to free
the slaves.
Justin Bacon
(BRETNTRACI) writes:
>This was early in the War -
>"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with slavery in the
>States where it exhists." Lincoln. In July of 1861 the Union Congress
>overwhelmingly endorsed this position. So the North was not fighting to free
>the slaves.
Which has nothing to do with why the South seceded.
Justin Bacon
tr...@prairie.lakes.com
Justin Bacon
(BRETNTRACI) writes:
>>In short, the only "state's right" being defended was
>>the right to abuse dark-skinned human beings as debased
>>livestock.
>
>No you are wrong. It was not about slavery slavery was not an issue until
>aoubt
>the thrid year of the war.
I can't believe you just did that. *Completely* ignored cited evidence in order
to continually regurgitate this clap-trap. You have leaders of the
Confederation *quoted* as saying that got into the war over slavery.
And, in case you haven't figured it out yet, the motivation behind the "states
rights" of the south, was out of fear that a northern-dominated federal
government would ban slavery. The "state right" they were trying to maintain,
was the "state right" to maintain slavery.
>It was about states rights. It was about the
>violation of the 10th Ammendment.
What violation of the 10th amendment?
>Well considering that Jefferson had slaves he didn;t mean black they at the
>time were considered property.
Jefferson tried at multiple times during his life to free his slaves, but could
never bring himself to sign the final papers.
Justin Bacon
tr...@prairie.lakes.com
BRETNTRACI
You are right, but the reason I posted the quote was because of the people
claiming that slavery was the primary issue of the war. It was not. On either
side.
BRETNTRACI
>order
>to continually regurgitate this clap-trap. You have leaders of the
>Confederation *quoted* as saying that got into the war over slavery.
And you *Completely* ignored my Jefferson Davis *quote* that stated that the
reason for the war was states rights. WHile slavery was a hot issue the reason
the war started war *states rights* if they had not been infringed upon then
there would have been *NO WAR*
>
>And, in case you haven't figured it out yet, the motivation behind the
>"states
>rights" of the south, was out of fear that a northern-dominated federal
>government would ban slavery. The "state right" they were trying to maintain,
>was the "state right" to maintain slavery.
Well incase *you* haven;t figured it out yet - states rights means that it
*SHOULD HAVE BEEN UP TO THEM* The federal government had no right to dictate a
ban if they decided to do so but AT THE TIME THE UNION DID NOT CARE THAT MUCH
ABOUT SLAVERY (See my Lincoln quote you attacked me for posting) Thus over the
issue of states rights the war got started. It would have been just the same it
it were something other than slavery. Lincoln waffeled on his position on
slavery almost three years into the war.
>>It was about states rights. It was about the
>>violation of the 10th Ammendment.
>
>What violation of the 10th amendment?
Any power not granted to the Federal government fall to the States (ie
Secession)
>
>>Well considering that Jefferson had slaves he didn;t mean black they at the
>>time were considered property.
>
>Jefferson tried at multiple times during his life to free his slaves, but
>could
>never bring himself to sign the final papers.
>
Because he knew it was the moral thing to do but would not have been legal to
do so. It was left up to individual states. duh.
Alyson L. Abramowitz
> for *Best
> Dramatic Presentation* went to "The Truman Show" do you feel this
> was a rebuke
>of B5's fifth and final season (which many are saying has lead to
>a dramatic
> softening of support for your sci-fi franchise)?
I was at this years worldcon. If there was a lack of support for B5, it
certainly wasn't present in any of the panels or presentations which jms
did (which were very well attended, despite consistent, inadequate
preparation by most of the moderators and panelists). And the folks
attending included lots of the familiar faces I've seen from other
worldcons and pure-sf fandom. So it wasn't just Babylon 5-exclusive
fans.
Hugo voting is always somewhat mysterious in nature (well, to me
anyhow, and you would think after 20 years I'd have a pattern down). SF
fans seem to prefer innovation and movies to tv. SiL hadn't yet played
in Australia (though Americans who could vote outnumbered any other
country about 3 to 1 and it has played in Canada, and the UK, adding
even more folks who saw it, so that was likely a minority factor). The
winner was actually an interesting idea. B5 already has a Hugo. I
suspect these and others are more the reasons for the winning movie
rather than a lack of interest in B5.
If you want information on the Hugo breakdowns, look in
http://www.home.aone.net.au/stigmata/ for membership breakdowns and
http://www.cse.rmit.edu.au/~rdsrf/hugos/ for the Hugo results.
Thomas Fitzgerald Van Horne
point.
In article <37CE97B4...@tyler.net>, WWS <wsch...@tyler.net> wrote:
>
>
>Thomas Fitzgerald Van Horne wrote:
>> The United States, by the way, has all kinds of wierd powers and
>> obligations that are not mentioned in the constitution because they are
>> "inherent" in the nature of soveriegn states (and the world's courts say so).
>
>That is a direct contradiction of the 10th amendment. I don't dispute
>that is is the current status quo and the nature of the system we live
>under, but it is quite literally unconstitutional. ...
>
>> Any provision of the constitution can be over-ridden by a treaty
>> Also, as of a 1940's decision by justice Black, any agreement entered into by
>> the President (because he's sole elected representative of all the people)
>> with another head-of-state (exectutive agreement) constitutes a treaty (none
>> of that "Senate ratification" stuff needed).
>
I was wrong. It wasn't Justice Black and it wasn't WWII. It was
Justice Sutherland deciding "United States vs. Curtis-Wright Export Corp"
1936.
A quote from a net resource notes that 99% of all currently binding
international agreements are in the form of "executive agreements" one example
of which is NAFTA (the Senate voted to support NAFTA-- a resolution to
authorize the President to implement the agreement-- but did not ratify it as
a treaty which would have required a 2/3 majority vote. The President COULD
have legally implemented the agreement without the Senate vote-- Presidents
usually CHOOSE to seek Senate support as they are supposed to under the
constitution-- but they are not legally obligated to do so).
Also, it isn't really "unconstitutional" so much as it is
"super-constitutional". The power of the constitution to limit or modify the
powers of the US is itself legally limited by the fact that the US existed as
an independent nation prior to the adoption of the constitution-- the
constitution could only legally modify the existing situation, not override
it-- for example, the Treaty of Paris ending the war of independence has
"super-constitional" power even though never ratified by the senate (it
existed before the senate). If you can find some relevence in its provisions,
you can use them as a basis for legal action today and they theoreticly
"outrank" even constitutional provisions. The 10th (or any other) ammendment
cannot overrule federal powers that derive from the existence of the US as a
nation. This is Sutherland's main point regarding executive agreement--
SOMEBODY has to represent the US in international affairs and the only
possible entity that can fill that obligation is the Chief Executive.
John W. Kennedy
the Constitution relates to other law as axioms to theorems, and will
not accept any other metalegal theory.