Gay Marriage - There's a lot of fear out there.
torresD
Anneke.A
"torresD" <torr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8rWdnaNRVf4RE5XU...@earthlink.com...
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2008/oct/29/uselections2008-gayrights
I never understood the legal concept of marriage not to be open to all, when
having the required age and marital status. There is no exception under the
constitution with regards to equal rights and gender. Religion is another
matter of course. This fear is religion based and special interest hijacked
it.
A
Joe Irvin
"Anneke.A" <andr...@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:4908929e$0$27221$ba62...@text.nova.planet.nl...
This is probably what the Framers of the US Constitution defined as
marriage:
MAR'RIAGE, n. [L.mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life;
wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract
both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in
mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was
instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous
intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing
the maintenance and education of children.
Noah Webster Dictionary 1828.
If one uses this definition of marriage no ones 'equal rights' are touched.
>
>
Dr. Barry Worthington
> "Anneke.A" <andri...@planet.nl> wrote in message
>
> news:4908929e$0$27221$ba62...@text.nova.planet.nl...
>
>
>
> > "torresD" <torres...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:8rWdnaNRVf4RE5XU...@earthlink.com...
> >>http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2008/oct/29/uselections2008-gay...
>
> > I never understood the legal concept of marriage not to be open to all,
> > when having the required age and marital status. There is no exception
> > under the constitution with regards to equal rights and gender. Religion
> > is another matter of course. This fear is religion based and special
> > interest hijacked it.
>
> > A
>
> This is probably what the Framers of the US Constitution defined as
> marriage:
> MAR'RIAGE, n. [L.mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life;
> wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract
> both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in
> mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was
> instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous
> intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing
> the maintenance and education of children.
> Noah Webster Dictionary 1828.
>
> If one uses this definition of marriage no ones 'equal rights' are touched.
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
So, where, exactly, is marriage mentioned in your Constitution?
Dr. Barry Worthington
Slime Bucket McCain
Erm, the part that, um, forners aren't allowed to read!
Joe Irvin
"Dr. Barry Worthington" <sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:59f9f7e9-b6c0-40ac...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Its not mentioned in the US Constitution. Its not an enumerated power.
Dr. Barry Worthington
znuybv
> "torresD" <torres...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:8rWdnaNRVf4RE5XU...@earthlink.com...
>
> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2008/oct/29/uselections2008-gay...
>
> I never understood the legal concept of marriage not to be open to all, when
> having the required age and marital status. There is no exception under the
> constitution with regards to equal rights and gender. Religion is another
> matter of course. This fear is religion based and special interest hijacked
> it.
>
> A
Marriage is only open to people whom judges say it is open to. You
have no say in the matter.
znuybv
znuybv
> "Dr. Barry Worthington" <sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote in messagenews:59f9f7e9-b6c0-40ac...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
People should read Article 10.
Wayne
"Joe Irvin" <ji3...@sccoast.net> wrote in message
news:WNadnToy0u2...@comporium.net...
Dr. Barry Worthington
> "Dr. Barry Worthington" <sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote in messagenews:59f9f7e9-b6c0-40ac...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Then why are you wittering on about the Founding Fathers probable
definition of marriage? Why should the government, or anyone else care
if a gay couple want to get married? Whose business is it?
Dr. Barry Worthington
>
> Dr. Barry Worthington- Hide quoted text -
Dr. Barry Worthington
Which assumes that whatever in a State Constitution, or an Act passed
by that State's legislature, is not repugnant to anything within the
US Constitution itself. A prohibition of a legitimate right to marry
will inevitable violate some of the other Articles of the Bill of
Rights.
Dr. Barry Worthington
Joe Irvin
Because Ms Anneke mentioned the Constitution in her post I gave her the
definition of marriage during the time of the ratification of he document.
The Constitution was for the Federal govt and had nothing to do with
marriage ... marriage was a power reserved for the State/People power.
Joe Irvin
"znuybv" <thow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:027331f7-7d5a-44ee...@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
True, reserved for the States and People.
*Poetic Justice*
Neither is taxing labor. Only taxing income, and when you sell a car
you bought for $1000 for $1000 you have no income, when you sell an hour
of your life, you have made no income..... that hour of your life is
worth more than they paid you, you had no income. Corporations have
income, people selling their labor don't.
> Then why are you wittering on about the Founding Fathers probable
> definition of marriage? Why should the government, or anyone else care
> if a gay couple want to get married? Whose business is it?
>
Just like how much money I have or make??????? whose business is it?
> Because Ms Anneke mentioned the Constitution in her post I gave her the
> definition of marriage during the time of the ratification of he document.
> The Constitution was for the Federal govt and had nothing to do with
> marriage ... marriage was a power reserved for the State/People power.
>
> Dr. Barry Worthington
>
>> Dr. Barry Worthington- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
--
*Liberal Commandments*
1. Thou shalt always be a victim.
2. Spend thy Neighbors money to keep your Brothers in the comfort zone,
that which makes him happy.
3. That which is not Liberal is Evil, use any means possible to promote
Liberal/socialist agenda.
4. Do not covet Success and achievement, teach others to strive for
mediocrity.
5. Show your enemy your Bluster, before whining like a child.
6. Government is the only religion of man, serve no other cause.
7. Tithe all you have and will have to our cause, for that which is not
spent, will come back.
8. Believe in unconditional Peace and Love, so then shall you become
self important and omnipotent.
9. The truth of everything is that which you make it.
10. Life is above all else... until it would interfere with ones choice.
Joe Irvin
"Dr. Barry Worthington" <sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:c71c2004-a0f1-4c93...@d70g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
The conservative view of marriage is as Thomas Fleming points out: "Since
marriage, family, and kinship are prior to the state, which draws its
ligitimacy from these connections of blood and sex, a true republic would be
loath to interfere in marriage..."
Dr. Barry Worthington
> "Dr. Barry Worthington" <sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote in messagenews:c71c2004-a0f1-4c93...@d70g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
A 'conservative view of marriage'? What is that supposed to mean? In
parts of Africa anf the Middle East, such a 'conservative' view would
endorse polygamy!
Your 'true republic' was once loath to interfere in the institution of
slavery. At other times, governments have allowed husbands to beat
their wives, since it was considered part of the 'natural order' of
society.
You have the quote the wrong way round. The state should mind its own
business where personal relationships are concerned.
Dr. Barry Worthington
>
> Dr. Barry Worthington
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
>
>
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Joe Irvin
I think Ms Anneke was talking about marriage in the West ... I believe she
was implying that marriage was to confining. Marriage is not confining or
discrimitory as its been defined for centuries in the West. As far as
Africa and the Middle East generally marriage is between opposite sexes
even if one sex is allowed to marry more than one person of the opposite
sex.
Your 'true republic' was once loath to interfere in the institution of
slavery.
Sure it did, but it never tried to redefine the meaning of the world
slavery. The Framers knew that slavery was wrong, but to get the
Constitution ratified they had to make compromises. It was written so that
later generations could change it. It didn't work, it took a war to
actually change, but it was changed.
At other times, governments have allowed husbands to beat
their wives, since it was considered part of the 'natural order' of
society.
Domestic problems were not a power that the Fed Govt received from the
States. They are police powers and were part local govts powers ... the
problem of 'domestic violence' were not handled by changing the definition
of what 'beating ones wife' was either.
You have the quote the wrong way round. The state should mind its own
business where personal relationships are concerned.
I don't agree that I have the quote the wrong way around, but I do agree
with the state should mind its own business of where personal relationships
are concerned. I guess you will agree with me then on the definition of
marriage as understood in the West in past centuries.
znuybv
wrote:
The only ones in government that I see caring on the judges. Nobody
seemed to care much about same sex marriages until a few judges told
us how we had to care about it. Four judges in California told me
that I had to accept it. Four million ordinary citizens said that I
shouldn't have to. Four judges trumped the four million people. It
may be reversed in a few days.
Do you believe that it is only the business of only four judges?
znuybv
wrote:
Who has the legitimate right to marry? Is it not determined by the
the State?
znuybv
wrote:
> On Oct 30, 2:46 pm, "Joe Irvin" <ji3...@sccoast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Dr. Barry Worthington" <sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote in messagenews:c71c2004-a0f1-4c93...@d70g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
of a minimum age.
> Your 'true republic' was once loath to interfere in the institution of
> slavery. At other times, governments have allowed husbands to beat
> their wives, since it was considered part of the 'natural order' of
> society.
>
Our Republic did interfere with institution of slavery. Quite
violently.
The only government that come to mind who allow wife beatings are
Islamic governments.
> You have the quote the wrong way round. The state should mind its own
> business where personal relationships are concerned.
>
It looks to me that you think the State should only do what you think
it should do.
Lamont Cranston
So, it's not only the judges that care, huh? Four million
citizens care as well? I guess that makes your first
statement a lie.
> Four judges trumped the four million people.
No, four million people passed a law that was
unconstitutional.
> It
> may be reversed in a few days.
> Do you believe that it is only the business of only four
> judges?
It is the business of the judges to interpret the California
State Constitution. It is not the business of ordinary
citizens to do so.
Do you believe that discrimination should be written into
the California State Constitition?
Lamont Cranston
It looks to me like you think the State should only do what
Dr. Barry Worthington
But a 'conservative view' in parts of Africa would state otherwise,
and endorse polygamy. Anyway, same sex marriages are not new in the
West (since that is what you are talking about). They were seemingly
endorsed by the church at some levels in medieval society (I'm talking
about pre-tridentine marriage of course, which operated at a number of
levels/stages) when some homosexual couples were clearly betrothed in
a 'connubium'.
> > Your 'true republic' was once loath to interfere in the institution of
> > slavery. At other times, governments have allowed husbands to beat
> > their wives, since it was considered part of the 'natural order' of
> > society.
>
> Our Republic did interfere with institution of slavery. Quite
> violently.
Only after the war had started, I recall.
> The only government that come to mind who allow wife beatings are
> Islamic governments.
Not in the past. That was my point. Social views change and evolve.
>
> > You have the quote the wrong way round. The state should mind its own
> > business where personal relationships are concerned.
>
> It looks to me that you think the State should only do what you think
> it should do.
That's what most people think. It's called 'democracy'.
Dr. Barry Worthington
No. Some churches refuse to marry divorcees, for example. The state
has no opinion on the matter.
znuybv
wrote:
> znuybvwrote:
> > Four judges trumped the four million people.
>
> No, four million people passed a law that was
> unconstitutional.
>
Wrong.
> > It
> > may be reversed in a few days.
> > Do you believe that it is only the business of only four
> > judges?
>
Actually seven judges; three disagreed with the other four.
> It is the business of the judges to interpret the California
> State Constitution. It is not the business of ordinary
> citizens to do so.
>
Ask Rose Bird.
She was a Chief Justice of California. She was ousted because the
people didn't like the way she interpreted the Constitution.
> Do you believe that discrimination should be written into
> the California State Constitition?
Yes and so do you. Go ahead tell me that there is nothing that you
discriminate against. You are probably one of the most intolerant
person in the group.
znuybv
wrote:
> znuybvwrote:
On the contrary. I believe in adherence to the Constitution and the
will of the people.
znuybv
wrote:
znuybv
wrote:
lot of made up non sequitors.
Dr. Barry Worthington
You stated that the nature of marriage (in the sense of who might
marry) was always determined by the state. I gave you an example of an
instance where it wasn't. QED
Dr. Barry Worthington
Cite an instance of that before the Confederates were stupid enough to
attack a Federal fort....
Dr. Barry Worthington
Dr. Barry Worthington
The freedom to do what you like in your personal sexual/life (provided
it is consensual, of course) and the freedom to act like a selfish
little piggy in ignoring your civic and moral responsibilities, are
not to be compared....
Now please bugger off.....
Dr. Barry Worthington
>
> > Because Ms Anneke mentioned the Constitution in her post I gave her the
> > definition of marriage during the time of the ratification of he document.
> > The Constitution was for the Federal govt and had nothing to do with
> > marriage ... marriage was a power reserved for the State/People power.
>
> > Dr. Barry Worthington
>
> >> Dr. Barry Worthington- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> --
> *Liberal Commandments*
> 1. Thou shalt always be a victim.
> 2. Spend thy Neighbors money to keep your Brothers in the comfort zone,
> that which makes him happy.
> 3. That which is not Liberal is Evil, use any means possible to promote
> Liberal/socialist agenda.
> 4. Do not covet Success and achievement, teach others to strive for
> mediocrity.
> 5. Show your enemy your Bluster, before whining like a child.
> 6. Government is the only religion of man, serve no other cause.
> 7. Tithe all you have and will have to our cause, for that which is not
> spent, will come back.
> 8. Believe in unconditional Peace and Love, so then shall you become
> self important and omnipotent.
> 9. The truth of everything is that which you make it.
> 10. Life is above all else... until it would interfere with ones choice.- Hide quoted text -
Steve
<sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote:
The word "marriage" ought to be struck out of any and all laws and
substituted with "civil union" which would identify only a contractual
relationship. The government has no business in non-contractual
interpersonal relationships other than for the protection of children.
People could use the word marriage for whatever they want it to
mean...
Pride is the recognition of the fact that you are your own
highest value and, like all of man’s values, it has to be
earned.
_Ayn Rand "ATLAS SHRUGGED"
Steve
<sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote:
I don't expect the schools over there to spend much time on U.S.
History, so I wouldn't expect you to know about the Northwest
Ordinance of 1787 (look it up) , but the Missouri Compromise was a
fairly big issue.. The Northwest was nullified by the Dredd Scott
case in 1857, but only until the thirteenth Amendment in 1865.. while
the Norwest was law for seventy years
>
>Dr. Barry Worthington
>
>>
>>
>>
>> > > The only government that come to mind who allow wife beatings are
>> > > Islamic governments.
>>
>> > Not in the past. That was my point. Social views change and evolve.
>>
>> > > > You have the quote the wrong way round. The state should mind its own
>> > > > business where personal relationships are concerned.
>>
>> > > It looks to me that you think the State should only do what you think
>> > > it should do.
>>
>> > That's what most people think. It's called 'democracy'.
>>
>> > Dr. Barry Worthington
>>
>> > > > Dr. Barry Worthington
>>
>> > > > > Dr. Barry Worthington
>>
>> > > > > - Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
Pride is the recognition of the fact that you are your own
Lamont Cranston
So, you agree with me.
>
>> Do you believe that discrimination should be written into
>> the California State Constitition?
>
> Yes and so do you.
No, I do not.
> Go ahead tell me that there is nothing that you
> discriminate against.
I discriminate against willful ignorance and intolerance by
ignoring it. I will always support your right to be stupid.
> You are probably one of the most intolerant
> person in the group.
Sure, I am, skippy. lol
Lamont Cranston
Obviously, you don't believe in adherence to the
Constitution. Otherwise, you wouldn't be trying to change
it to suit your desires.
Dr. Barry Worthington
Why?
>so I wouldn't expect you to know about the Northwest
> Ordinance of 1787 (look it up) , but the Missouri Compromise was a
> fairly big issue.. The Northwest was nullified by the Dredd Scott
> case in 1857, but only until the thirteenth Amendment in 1865.. while
> the Norwest was law for seventy years
And did any of these fundamentally alter the operation of slavery in
the Southern States? No, they did not. It took a Civil war and the
resulting Emancipation Proclamation, to do that.
Dr. Barry Worthington
>
>
>
>
>
> >Dr. Barry Worthington
>
> >> > > The only government that come to mind who allow wife beatings are
> >> > > Islamic governments.
>
> >> > Not in the past. That was my point. Social views change and evolve.
>
> >> > > > You have the quote the wrong way round. The state should mind its own
> >> > > > business where personal relationships are concerned.
>
> >> > > It looks to me that you think the State should only do what you think
> >> > > it should do.
>
> >> > That's what most people think. It's called 'democracy'.
>
> >> > Dr. Barry Worthington
>
> >> > > > Dr. Barry Worthington
>
> >> > > > > Dr. Barry Worthington
>
> >> > > > > - Hide quoted text -
>
> >> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> Pride is the recognition of the fact that you are your own
> highest value and, like all of man’s values, it has to be
> earned.
> _Ayn Rand "ATLAS SHRUGGED"- Hide quoted text -
Steve
<sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote:
because you guys are generally too enthralled with your own history...
>
>>so I wouldn't expect you to know about the Northwest
>> Ordinance of 1787 (look it up) , but the Missouri Compromise was a
>> fairly big issue.. � The Northwest was nullified by the Dredd Scott
>> case in 1857, but only until the thirteenth Amendment in 1865.. �while
>> the Norwest was law for seventy years
>
>And did any of these fundamentally alter the operation of slavery in
>the Southern States?
Southern states??? Nice backpeddle there....
>No, they did not. It took a Civil war and the
>resulting Emancipation Proclamation, to do that.
>
>
>Dr. Barry Worthington
Actually, the Emancipation Proclamation didn't really do anything
other than keep you Brits from entering the war on the side of the
south, which, by Lincoln's own words, was all it was ever designed to
do.... The Emancipation Proclamation didn't free any slaves that a
U.S law had any control over..
Dr. Barry Worthington
I said "cite an instance of that before the Confederates were stupid
enough to attack a Federal fort...." What don't you understand about
that?
>
> >No, they did not. It took a Civil war and the
> >resulting Emancipation Proclamation, to do that.
>
> >Dr. Barry Worthington
>
> Actually, the Emancipation Proclamation didn't really do anything
> other than keep you Brits from entering the war on the side of the
> south, which, by Lincoln's own words, was all it was ever designed to
> do.... The Emancipation Proclamation didn't free any slaves that a
> U.S law had any control over..
Whatever its motives, it emancipated slaves in those states in
rebellion against the Union. I'd call that quite a lot. And, of
course, it kickstarted the process, by which the 'good guys' really
started to wipe the floor with the Confederate States!
There was never much likelihood of a British government allying itself
with the Confederates, since our Northern working class and Liberals
would never have permitted it. At a protest meeting in Manchester, our
workers sent a resolution in a letter to Lincoln telling him that
(even though many were cotton mill operatives, suffering from the
effects of the Federal blockade). Lincoln's touching reply is engraved
on our statue of him in Manchester.
By the way, since when did the writ of US law never run throughout
your land?
I have read his righteous sentence graven in words of steel.
'As ye deal with the transgressor, so with you my grace shall deal,
Let the hero born of woman crush the serpant with his heel!
Our God is marching on.'
Dr. Barry Worthington
>
> Pride is the recognition of the fact that you are your own
> highest value and, like all of man’s values, it has to be
> earned.
> _Ayn Rand "ATLAS SHRUGGED"- Hide quoted text -
tv
Not me. I'm trying to stop liberal Democrats from changing it.
tv
> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 02:59:19 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. Barry Worthington"
>
>
>
> <sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote:
The man who is doing his best to sink same sex marriage id Gavin
Newsom.
He's telling the voters that he's going to shove same sex marriage up
their ass whether they like it or not.
Steve
<sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote:
...and I cited a couple of such cases... Northwest Ordinance of 1787
and the Missouri Compromise..
>What don't you understand about
>that?
I understand that you had to backpeddle the "southern states" in
there...
>>
>> >No, they did not. It took a Civil war and the
>> >resulting Emancipation Proclamation, to do that.
>>
>> >Dr. Barry Worthington
>>
>> Actually, the Emancipation Proclamation didn't really do anything
>> other than keep you Brits from entering the war on the side of the
>> south, which, by Lincoln's own words, was all it was ever designed to
>> do.... The Emancipation Proclamation didn't free any slaves that a
>> U.S law had any control over..
>
>Whatever its motives, it emancipated slaves in those states in
>rebellion against the Union.
Hardly.. the law has no real effect there....
>I'd call that quite a lot. And, of
>course, it kickstarted the process, by which the 'good guys' really
>started to wipe the floor with the Confederate States!
>
>There was never much likelihood of a British government allying itself
Actually there was a big likelihood that they were going yo ally with
the Confederates...
>with the Confederates, since our Northern working class and Liberals
>would never have permitted it.
Not after Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation which meant
that anyone taking the South's side was fighting for slavery..
At a protest meeting in Manchester, our
>workers sent a resolution in a letter to Lincoln telling him that
>(even though many were cotton mill operatives, suffering from the
>effects of the Federal blockade). Lincoln's touching reply is engraved
>on our statue of him in Manchester.
>
>By the way, since when did the writ of US law never run throughout
>your land?
The Emancipation proclamation specifically addressed only the states
that were in rebellion... and, of course, the U.S. authority in those
states was very much in question at the time. There were other
states, border states that were slave states that did not join the
Confederacy, and in those states the EP did not apply.
Gary DeWaay
5eac00...@d70g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
sh...@abertay.ac.uk Dr. Barry Worthington says...
> >
> > Article 10.
>
> Which assumes that whatever in a State Constitution, or an Act passed
> by that State's legislature, is not repugnant to anything within the
> US Constitution itself. A prohibition of a legitimate right to marry
> will inevitable violate some of the other Articles of the Bill of
> Rights.
>
> Dr. Barry Worthington
>
Amazing how people from not in this country know more about
our Constitution than 99% of all righties.
Gary DeWaay
1d015d...@i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
thow...@gmail.com znuybv says...
> > > Our Republic did interfere with institution of slavery. Quite
> > > violently.
> >
> > Only after the war had started, I recall.
> >
> No. Before the war. Read your history.
>
>
Isn't that why the states wanted to secede?
If you want to abolish gay marriage start your own country
like they tried to. In this one, all men are created equal.
Dr. Barry Worthington
So why did you cut the cite from my previous psting that contradicts
you...the one that refers to 'Confederates'? What a sad little person
you are! Do you think that other people don't read these exchanges?
>
>
>
> >> >No, they did not. It took a Civil war and the
> >> >resulting Emancipation Proclamation, to do that.
>
> >> >Dr. Barry Worthington
>
> >> Actually, the Emancipation Proclamation didn't really do anything
> >> other than keep you Brits from entering the war on the side of the
> >> south, which, by Lincoln's own words, was all it was ever designed to
> >> do.... The Emancipation Proclamation didn't free any slaves that a
> >> U.S law had any control over..
>
> >Whatever its motives, it emancipated slaves in those states in
> >rebellion against the Union.
>
> Hardly.. the law has no real effect there..
It changed the legal status of those slaves who had fled and
encouraged more of them to do so....
>
> >I'd call that quite a lot. And, of
> >course, it kickstarted the process, by which the 'good guys' really
> >started to wipe the floor with the Confederate States!
>
> >There was never much likelihood of a British government allying itself
>
> Actually there was a big likelihood that they were going yo ally with
> the Confederates...
Well, I only read history at a British university, and was raised in
Manchester, so what would I know? Admit it, you know nothing about
Lincoln's reply to the Manchester letter, do you?
>
> >with the Confederates, since our Northern working class and Liberals
> >would never have permitted it.
>
> Not after Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation which meant
> that anyone taking the South's side was fighting for slavery..
Even before that.....
>
> At a protest meeting in Manchester, our
>
> >workers sent a resolution in a letter to Lincoln telling him that
> >(even though many were cotton mill operatives, suffering from the
> >effects of the Federal blockade). Lincoln's touching reply is engraved
> >on our statue of him in Manchester.
>
> >By the way, since when did the writ of US law never run throughout
> >your land?
>
> The Emancipation proclamation specifically addressed only the states
> that were in rebellion... and, of course, the U.S. authority in those
> states was very much in question at the time.
Legally, it wasn't....
>There were other
> states, border states that were slave states that did not join the
> Confederacy, and in those states the EP did not apply.
It certainly did before long!
Dr. Barry Worthington
>
> >I have read his righteous sentence graven in words of steel.
> >'As ye deal with the transgressor, so with you my grace shall deal,
> >Let the hero born of woman crush the serpant with his heel!
> >Our God is marching on.'
>
> >Dr. Barry Worthington
> >
>
> >> Pride is the recognition of the fact that you are your own
> >> highest value and, like all of man’s values, it has to be
> >> earned.
> >> _Ayn Rand "ATLAS SHRUGGED"- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> Pride is the recognition of the fact that you are your own
> highest value and, like all of man’s values, it has to be
> earned.
> _Ayn Rand "ATLAS SHRUGGED"- Hide quoted text -
Steve
<sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote:
<LOL> Sure.... and here's what they'll see....
The original statement to you was: "Our Republic did interfere with
institution of slavery"
Your reply was: " Only after the war had started, I recall."
Then you were challenged by: "No. Before the war. Read your
history."
Then you replied: "Cite an instance of that before the Confederates
were stupid enough to attack a Federal fort...."
My answer to that was: "Ordinance of 1787" & " The Missouri
Compromise"
Then you backpeddled by asking: "And did any of these fundamentally
alter the operation of slavery in the Southern States?"
>> >> >No, they did not. It took a Civil war and the
>> >> >resulting Emancipation Proclamation, to do that.
>>
>> >> >Dr. Barry Worthington
>>
>> >> Actually, the Emancipation Proclamation didn't really do anything
>> >> other than keep you Brits from entering the war on the side of the
>> >> south, which, by Lincoln's own words, was all it was ever designed to
>> >> do.... The Emancipation Proclamation didn't free any slaves that a
>> >> U.S law had any control over..
>>
>> >Whatever its motives, it emancipated slaves in those states in
>> >rebellion against the Union.
>>
>> Hardly.. the law has no real effect there..
>
>It changed the legal status of those slaves who had fled and
>encouraged more of them to do so....
Sorry, but there wasn't a court or a law enforcement agent in the
confederacy that would agree....
>> >I'd call that quite a lot. And, of
>> >course, it kickstarted the process, by which the 'good guys' really
>> >started to wipe the floor with the Confederate States!
>>
>> >There was never much likelihood of a British government allying itself
>>
>> Actually there was a big likelihood that they were going yo ally with
>> the Confederates...
>
>Well, I only read history at a British university, and was raised in
>Manchester, so what would I know? Admit it, you know nothing about
>Lincoln's reply to the Manchester letter, do you?
Actually, Lincoln's letter pretty much proves my case... that
Lincoln was very worried that England was going to ally with the South
and he was appealing to England's working class to reject it..
>> >with the Confederates, since our Northern working class and Liberals
>> >would never have permitted it.
>>
>> Not after Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation which meant
>> that anyone taking the South's side was fighting for slavery..
>
>Even before that.....
Shortly before the E.P
>> At a protest meeting in Manchester, our
>>
>> >workers sent a resolution in a letter to Lincoln telling him that
>> >(even though many were cotton mill operatives, suffering from the
>> >effects of the Federal blockade). Lincoln's touching reply is engraved
>> >on our statue of him in Manchester.
>>
>> >By the way, since when did the writ of US law never run throughout
>> >your land?
>>
>> The Emancipation proclamation specifically addressed only the states
>> that were in rebellion... and, of course, the U.S. authority in those
>> states was very much in question at the time.
>
>Legally, it wasn't....
At the time, the legality of the issue was very much in question..
and any and all authorities of the law in Confederacy wouldn't honor
it
>>There were other
>> states, border states that were slave states that did not join the
>> Confederacy, and in those states the EP did not apply.
>
>It certainly did before long!
The EP did not apply to states that were not in rebellion, or as in
the case of Tennessee, was already under the control of Union forces
and it even allowed for slavery to continue in any state that
voluntarily returned to the Union..
The EP was specifically designed to tie the issue of slavery to the
war. and to thus inhibit international support for the south.. There
was plenty of sympathy for the Confederacy in England as evidenced by
the support that was given to Confederate naval privateers...
Dr. Barry Worthington
Sure, Steve! Three bags full, Steve! It's clear to anyone with half a
brain that I was referring to the institution of slavery in the
Confederate or Southern States.
>
> >> >> >No, they did not. It took a Civil war and the
> >> >> >resulting Emancipation Proclamation, to do that.
>
> >> >> >Dr. Barry Worthington
>
> >> >> Actually, the Emancipation Proclamation didn't really do anything
> >> >> other than keep you Brits from entering the war on the side of the
> >> >> south, which, by Lincoln's own words, was all it was ever designed to
> >> >> do.... The Emancipation Proclamation didn't free any slaves that a
> >> >> U.S law had any control over..
>
> >> >Whatever its motives, it emancipated slaves in those states in
> >> >rebellion against the Union.
>
> >> Hardly.. the law has no real effect there..
>
> >It changed the legal status of those slaves who had fled and
> >encouraged more of them to do so....
>
> Sorry, but there wasn't a court or a law enforcement agent in the
> confederacy that would agree....
I don't think that anyone was concerned with legal arguments advanced
by treasonous rebels at the time.....
>
> >> >I'd call that quite a lot. And, of
> >> >course, it kickstarted the process, by which the 'good guys' really
> >> >started to wipe the floor with the Confederate States!
>
> >> >There was never much likelihood of a British government allying itself
>
> >> Actually there was a big likelihood that they were going yo ally with
> >> the Confederates...
>
> >Well, I only read history at a British university, and was raised in
> >Manchester, so what would I know? Admit it, you know nothing about
> >Lincoln's reply to the Manchester letter, do you?
>
> Actually, Lincoln's letter pretty much proves my case... that
> Lincoln was very worried that England was going to ally with the South
> and he was appealing to England's working class to reject it..
It says nothing of the sort! Have you read it? Probably not.
>
> >> >with the Confederates, since our Northern working class and Liberals
> >> >would never have permitted it.
>
> >> Not after Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation which meant
> >> that anyone taking the South's side was fighting for slavery..
>
> >Even before that.....
>
> Shortly before the E.P
Most decent people in Europe, ranging from John Bright to Garibaldi,
sided with Lincoln from the start......
> >> At a protest meeting in Manchester, our
>
> >> >workers sent a resolution in a letter to Lincoln telling him that
> >> >(even though many were cotton mill operatives, suffering from the
> >> >effects of the Federal blockade). Lincoln's touching reply is engraved
> >> >on our statue of him in Manchester.
>
> >> >By the way, since when did the writ of US law never run throughout
> >> >your land?
>
> >> The Emancipation proclamation specifically addressed only the states
> >> that were in rebellion... and, of course, the U.S. authority in those
> >> states was very much in question at the time.
>
> >Legally, it wasn't....
>
> At the time, the legality of the issue was very much in question..
> and any and all authorities of the law in Confederacy wouldn't honor
> it
As if anyone gave a toss as to what Confederates thought!
>
> >>There were other
> >> states, border states that were slave states that did not join the
> >> Confederacy, and in those states the EP did not apply.
>
> >It certainly did before long!
>
> The EP did not apply to states that were not in rebellion, or as in
> the case of Tennessee, was already under the control of Union forces
> and it even allowed for slavery to continue in any state that
> voluntarily returned to the Union..
And how long did that last?
>
> The EP was specifically designed to tie the issue of slavery to the
> war.
Of course it was! But not for the reasons that you advamce. Not to
deter a British intervention on the part of the Confederates.
>and to thus inhibit international support for the south.. There
> was plenty of sympathy for the Confederacy in England as evidenced by
> the support that was given to Confederate naval privateers...
What support? Yes, the Alabama was built in Laird's shipyard at
Birkenhead, but Britain was officially neutral in the conflict, and
there was no law to prevent it. But that doesn't indicate support by
the mass of the population. Look, the cooton operatives of Lancashire
were starving, as the result of a Federal blockade. A golden
opportunity for Confederate agents to stir up anti Federal feeling
(and some of them tried). But what has come down to us in history is
the resolution in support of Lincoln passed by the working men of
Manchester, and his famous reply. I recently visited the Lloyd George
Museum at Llanystumdwy. It incorporates the boyhood home of the future
prime minister, and Richard Lloyd, the cobbler, had two portraits on
his wall - Gladstone and Lincoln. That was typical for the period.
Dr. Barry Worthington
Steve
<sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote:
<ROTFLMAO> Worthington continues his pathetic backpeddling and now
tries to deny his earlier reference to "the institution of slavery,"
even as it exists in this very post...
>> >> >> >No, they did not. It took a Civil war and the
>> >> >> >resulting Emancipation Proclamation, to do that.
>>
>> >> >> >Dr. Barry Worthington
>>
>> >> >> Actually, the Emancipation Proclamation didn't really do anything
>> >> >> other than keep you Brits from entering the war on the side of the
>> >> >> south, which, by Lincoln's own words, was all it was ever designed to
>> >> >> do.... The Emancipation Proclamation didn't free any slaves that a
>> >> >> U.S law had any control over..
>>
>> >> >Whatever its motives, it emancipated slaves in those states in
>> >> >rebellion against the Union.
>>
>> >> Hardly.. the law has no real effect there..
>>
>> >It changed the legal status of those slaves who had fled and
>> >encouraged more of them to do so....
>>
>> Sorry, but there wasn't a court or a law enforcement agent in the
>> confederacy that would agree....
>
>I don't think that anyone was concerned with legal arguments advanced
>by treasonous rebels at the time.....
The rebels controlled the courts Dummy.. They paid no attention to
the EP.
>> >> >I'd call that quite a lot. And, of
>> >> >course, it kickstarted the process, by which the 'good guys' really
>> >> >started to wipe the floor with the Confederate States!
>>
>> >> >There was never much likelihood of a British government allying itself
>>
>> >> Actually there was a big likelihood that they were going yo ally with
>> >> the Confederates...
>>
>> >Well, I only read history at a British university, and was raised in
>> >Manchester, so what would I know? Admit it, you know nothing about
>> >Lincoln's reply to the Manchester letter, do you?
>>
>> Actually, Lincoln's letter pretty much proves my case... that
>> Lincoln was very worried that England was going to ally with the South
>> and he was appealing to England's working class to reject it..
>
>It says nothing of the sort! Have you read it? Probably not.
"I have understood well that the duty of self-preservation
rests solely with the American people; but I have at the
same time been aware that favor or disfavor of foreign
nations might have a material influence in enlarging or prolonging
the struggle with disloyal men in which the country
is engaged. A fair examination of history has served to
authorize a belief that the past actions and influences of the
United States were generally regarded as having been beneficial
toward mankind. I have, therefore, reckoned upon
the forbearance of nations. Circumstances to some of
which you kindly allude induce me especially to expect
that if justice and good faith should be practiced by the
United States, they would encounter no hostile influence
on the part of Great Britain."
--Abraham Lincoln
LETTER TO THE WORKINGMEN OF MANCHESTER, ENGLAND
>> >> >with the Confederates, since our Northern working class and Liberals
>> >> >would never have permitted it.
>>
>> >> Not after Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation which meant
>> >> that anyone taking the South's side was fighting for slavery..
>>
>> >Even before that.....
>>
>> Shortly before the E.P
>
>Most decent people in Europe, ranging from John Bright to Garibaldi,
>sided with Lincoln from the start......
Side with Lincoln about what?
>
>> >> At a protest meeting in Manchester, our
>>
>> >> >workers sent a resolution in a letter to Lincoln telling him that
>> >> >(even though many were cotton mill operatives, suffering from the
>> >> >effects of the Federal blockade). Lincoln's touching reply is engraved
>> >> >on our statue of him in Manchester.
>>
>> >> >By the way, since when did the writ of US law never run throughout
>> >> >your land?
>>
>> >> The Emancipation proclamation specifically addressed only the states
>> >> that were in rebellion... and, of course, the U.S. authority in those
>> >> states was very much in question at the time.
>>
>> >Legally, it wasn't....
>>
>> At the time, the legality of the issue was very much in question..
>> and any and all authorities of the law in Confederacy wouldn't honor
>> it
>
>As if anyone gave a toss as to what Confederates thought!
The hard fact is that the Confederates controlled the courts, so
indeed, only their interpretation of the law counted for anything
>> >>There were other
>> >> states, border states that were slave states that did not join the
>> >> Confederacy, and in those states the EP did not apply.
>>
>> >It certainly did before long!
>>
>> The EP did not apply to states that were not in rebellion, or as in
>> the case of Tennessee, was already under the control of Union forces
>> and it even allowed for slavery to continue in any state that
>> voluntarily returned to the Union..
>
>And how long did that last?
For a couple of years...
>> The EP was specifically designed to tie the issue of slavery to the
>> war.
>
>Of course it was! But not for the reasons that you advamce. Not to
>deter a British intervention on the part of the Confederates.
<LOL> So for what reason(s) do you think he did it?
" My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is
not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union
without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by
freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by
freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do
about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps
to save the Union;"
--Abraham Lincoln
Letter to Horace Greely
Dr. Barry Worthington
God, you are tedious.....
>
> >> >> >> >No, they did not. It took a Civil war and the
> >> >> >> >resulting Emancipation Proclamation, to do that.
>
> >> >> >> >Dr. Barry Worthington
>
> >> >> >> Actually, the Emancipation Proclamation didn't really do anything
> >> >> >> other than keep you Brits from entering the war on the side of the
> >> >> >> south, which, by Lincoln's own words, was all it was ever designed to
> >> >> >> do.... The Emancipation Proclamation didn't free any slaves that a
> >> >> >> U.S law had any control over..
>
> >> >> >Whatever its motives, it emancipated slaves in those states in
> >> >> >rebellion against the Union.
>
> >> >> Hardly.. the law has no real effect there..
>
> >> >It changed the legal status of those slaves who had fled and
> >> >encouraged more of them to do so....
>
> >> Sorry, but there wasn't a court or a law enforcement agent in the
> >> confederacy that would agree....
>
> >I don't think that anyone was concerned with legal arguments advanced
> >by treasonous rebels at the time.....
>
> The rebels controlled the courts Dummy.. They paid no attention to
> the EP.
Presumably they did when Sherman burnt the courthouse down....
And your point is?
>
> >> >> >with the Confederates, since our Northern working class and Liberals
> >> >> >would never have permitted it.
>
> >> >> Not after Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation which meant
> >> >> that anyone taking the South's side was fighting for slavery..
>
> >> >Even before that.....
>
> >> Shortly before the E.P
>
> >Most decent people in Europe, ranging from John Bright to Garibaldi,
> >sided with Lincoln from the start......
>
> Side with Lincoln about what?
Slavery and emancipation....
>
>
>
> >> >> At a protest meeting in Manchester, our
>
> >> >> >workers sent a resolution in a letter to Lincoln telling him that
> >> >> >(even though many were cotton mill operatives, suffering from the
> >> >> >effects of the Federal blockade). Lincoln's touching reply is engraved
> >> >> >on our statue of him in Manchester.
>
> >> >> >By the way, since when did the writ of US law never run throughout
> >> >> >your land?
>
> >> >> The Emancipation proclamation specifically addressed only the states
> >> >> that were in rebellion... and, of course, the U.S. authority in those
> >> >> states was very much in question at the time.
>
> >> >Legally, it wasn't....
>
> >> At the time, the legality of the issue was very much in question..
> >> and any and all authorities of the law in Confederacy wouldn't honor
> >> it
>
> >As if anyone gave a toss as to what Confederates thought!
>
> The hard fact is that the Confederates controlled the courts, so
> indeed, only their interpretation of the law counted for anything
Much good it did them.......
>
> >> >>There were other
> >> >> states, border states that were slave states that did not join the
> >> >> Confederacy, and in those states the EP did not apply.
>
> >> >It certainly did before long!
>
> >> The EP did not apply to states that were not in rebellion, or as in
> >> the case of Tennessee, was already under the control of Union forces
> >> and it even allowed for slavery to continue in any state that
> >> voluntarily returned to the Union..
>
> >And how long did that last?
>
> For a couple of years...
Really?
>
> >> The EP was specifically designed to tie the issue of slavery to the
> >> war.
>
> >Of course it was! But not for the reasons that you advamce. Not to
> >deter a British intervention on the part of the Confederates.
>
> <LOL> So for what reason(s) do you think he did it?
To convert the war into a crusade, of course....a war that was forced
upon him.... But nothing to do with foreign intervention, least of
all from Britain....
>
> " My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is
> not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union
> without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by
> freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by
> freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do
> about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps
> to save the Union;"
> --Abraham Lincoln
> Letter to Horace Greely
And that brings me back to my original point, methinks.....
Dr. Barry Worthington
Steve
<sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote:
<LOL> Bluster will not mask your backpeddling, Dummy...
That Lincoln was "aware that favor or disfavor of foreign nations
might have a material influence in enlarging or prolonging the
struggle with disloyal men in which the country
[was] engaged."
>> >> >> >with the Confederates, since our Northern working class and Liberals
>> >> >> >would never have permitted it.
>>
>> >> >> Not after Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation which meant
>> >> >> that anyone taking the South's side was fighting for slavery..
>>
>> >> >Even before that.....
>>
>> >> Shortly before the E.P
>>
>> >Most decent people in Europe, ranging from John Bright to Garibaldi,
>> >sided with Lincoln from the start......
>>
>> Side with Lincoln about what?
>
>Slavery and emancipation....
Strange, since Lincoln's primary focus was elsewhere and, as he
stated, not necessarily even in compliance with.
Obviously.. the war went on for more than two more years....
>> >> The EP was specifically designed to tie the issue of slavery to the
>> >> war.
>>
>> >Of course it was! But not for the reasons that you advamce. Not to
>> >deter a British intervention on the part of the Confederates.
>>
>> <LOL> So for what reason(s) do you think he did it?
>
>To convert the war into a crusade, of course....
A crusade for what." .....certainly not for abolition because he
stated that such was not the case.
>a war that was forced
>upon him.... But nothing to do with foreign intervention, least of
>all from Britain....
..and yet Lincoln himself believed that "that favor or disfavor of
foreign nations might have a material influence," as he said his
letter to Manchester.
Lincoln had been quite concerned about British and even French
intervention. The Trent incident was still echoing in his head...
and he knew that Europe was a very big customer for Southern grown
cotton, which the Union had placed an export tax upon to reduce
competition outside of the USA. A Confederate victory would have thus
lowered the price of Cotton in Europe....
>> " My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is
>> not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union
>> without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by
>> freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by
>> freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do
>> about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps
>> to save the Union;"
>> --Abraham Lincoln
>> Letter to Horace Greely
>
>And that brings me back to my original point, methinks.....
Hmmm, I saw nothing from you that indicated that you believed that
Lincoln fought the Civil War for no other reason that to preserve the
union... so, you must be lying....
Dr. Barry Worthington
Whatever.....
Goodbye,
Dr. Barry Worthington
>
>
>
> >> >> >> >> >No, they did not. It took a Civil war and the
> >> >> >> >> >resulting Emancipation Proclamation, to do that.
>
> >> >> >> >> >Dr. Barry Worthington
>
> >> >> >> >> Actually, the Emancipation Proclamation didn't really do anything
> >> >> >> >> other than keep you Brits from entering the war on the side of the
> >> >> >> >> south, which, by Lincoln's own words, was all it was ever designed to
> >> >> >> >> do.... The
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Steve
<sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote:
Run away, you pathetic chicken shit..... and nice snip of all my
reply that you had no answer for....
Apparently, Worthington has learned that I was right about Britain's
potential for allying with the South, but wasn't mature enough to
admit it. so snips it and runs away....
>Dr. Barry Worthington
>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >No, they did not. It took a Civil war and the
>> >> >> >> >> >resulting Emancipation Proclamation, to do that.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >Dr. Barry Worthington
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Actually, the Emancipation Proclamation didn't really do anything
>> >> >> >> >> other than keep you Brits from entering the war on the side of the
>> >> >> >> >> south, which, by Lincoln's own words, was all it was ever designed to
>> >> >> >> >> do.... The
>>
>> ...
>>
>> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
Snip restored below....
Dr. Barry Worthington
Irony indeed, since you are the one who selectively snipped the
exchanges.....
>
> Apparently, Worthington has learned that I was right about Britain's
> potential for allying with the South, but wasn't mature enough to
> admit it. so snips it and runs away....
I have learned nothing of the sort. I have learned that you are a
disagreable person inhabiting his own fantasy world...but then, I knew
that already....
And does that prove that Britain was likely to actively intervene in
the conflict? No, it doesn't.
> >> >> >> >with the Confederates, since our Northern working class and Liberals
> >> >> >> >would never have permitted it.
>
> >> >> >> Not after Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation which meant
> >> >> >> that anyone taking the South's side was fighting for slavery..
>
> >> >> >Even before that.....
>
> >> >> Shortly before the E.P
>
> >> >Most decent people in Europe, ranging from John Bright to Garibaldi,
> >> >sided with Lincoln from the start......
>
> >> Side with Lincoln about what?
>
> >Slavery and emancipation....
>
> Strange, since Lincoln's primary focus was elsewhere and, as he
> stated, not necessarily even in compliance with.
You are starting to be incoherent......
The war? I thought we were talking about slkavery....
>
> >> >> The EP was specifically designed to tie the issue of slavery to the
> >> >> war.
>
> >> >Of course it was! But not for the reasons that you advamce. Not to
> >> >deter a British intervention on the part of the Confederates.
>
> >> <LOL> So for what reason(s) do you think he did it?
>
> >To convert the war into a crusade, of course....
>
> A crusade for what." .....certainly not for abolition because he
> stated that such was not the case.
Then why an Emancipation Proclamation?
>
> >a war that was forced
> >upon him.... But nothing to do with foreign intervention, least of
> >all from Britain....
>
> ..and yet Lincoln himself believed that "that favor or disfavor of
> foreign nations might have a material influence," as he said his
> letter to Manchester.
Upon the Confederates, you silly man!
>
> Lincoln had been quite concerned about British and even French
> intervention. The Trent incident was still echoing in his head...
> and he knew that Europe was a very big customer for Southern grown
> cotton, which the Union had placed an export tax upon to reduce
> competition outside of the USA. A Confederate victory would have thus
> lowered the price of Cotton in Europe....
And some of the vicims of the 'Cotton Famine' in Manchester had sent
Licoln a letter of support.....
> >> " My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is
> >> not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union
> >> without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by
> >> freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by
> >> freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do
> >> about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps
> >> to save the Union;"
> >> --Abraham Lincoln
> >> Letter to Horace Greely
>
> >And that brings me back to my original point, methinks.....
>
> Hmmm, I saw nothing from you that indicated that you believed that
> Lincoln fought the Civil War for no other reason that to preserve the
> union... so, you must be lying....
My original pont about in relation to the state and 'gay marriage',
you idiot! Do keep up!
Dr. Barry Worthington
> >Dr. Barry Worthington
>
> Pride is the recognition of the fact that you are your own
> highest value and, like all of man’s values, it has to be
> earned.
> _Ayn Rand "ATLAS SHRUGGED"- Hide quoted text -
Steve
<sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote:
Worthington is a filthy liar as well as a chicken shit...
>> Apparently, Worthington has learned that I was right about Britain's
>> potential for allying with the South, but wasn't mature enough to
>> admit it. so snips it and runs away....
>
>I have learned nothing of the sort. I have learned that you are a
>disagreable person inhabiting his own fantasy world...but then, I knew
>that already....
<LOL> Poor Worthington got taught a thing or two and now he's whining
like a schoolgirl...
It shows that Lincoln was concerned about it... you might remember
that the issue was about why Lincoln issued the EP......
>> >> >> >> >with the Confederates, since our Northern working class and Liberals
>> >> >> >> >would never have permitted it.
>>
>> >> >> >> Not after Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation which meant
>> >> >> >> that anyone taking the South's side was fighting for slavery..
>>
>> >> >> >Even before that.....
>>
>> >> >> Shortly before the E.P
>>
>> >> >Most decent people in Europe, ranging from John Bright to Garibaldi,
>> >> >sided with Lincoln from the start......
>>
>> >> Side with Lincoln about what?
>>
>> >Slavery and emancipation....
>>
>> Strange, since Lincoln's primary focus was elsewhere and, as he
>> stated, not necessarily even in compliance with.
>
>You are starting to be incoherent......
You need another lesson, Chicken Shit. Here it is:
" My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is
not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union
without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by
freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by
freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do
about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps
to save the Union;"
--Abraham Lincoln
Letter to Horace Greely
So how exactly could anyone side with Lincoln about slavery and
emancipation when Lincoln was not even concerned with it?
Slavery existed until the end of the war, you moron... The EP did not
take effect over all the Confederate states until the surrender... and
in some places, not even then...
>> >> >> The EP was specifically designed to tie the issue of slavery to the
>> >> >> war.
>>
>> >> >Of course it was! But not for the reasons that you advamce. Not to
>> >> >deter a British intervention on the part of the Confederates.
>>
>> >> <LOL> So for what reason(s) do you think he did it?
>>
>> >To convert the war into a crusade, of course....
>>
>> A crusade for what." .....certainly not for abolition because he
>> stated that such was not the case.
>
>Then why an Emancipation Proclamation?
As I explained, it was a political move to tie the issue of slavery to
the war.
>> >a war that was forced
>> >upon him.... But nothing to do with foreign intervention, least of
>> >all from Britain....
>>
>> ..and yet Lincoln himself believed that "that favor or disfavor of
>> foreign nations might have a material influence," as he said his
>> letter to Manchester.
>
>Upon the Confederates, you silly man!
the quote continued to say... "that favor or disfavor of
foreign nations might have a material influence in enlarging or
prolonging the struggle with disloyal men in which the country
is engaged."
Now who was struggling with the disloyal men, Chicken Shit? certainly
not the Confederates since they were the "disloyal men."
>> Lincoln had been quite concerned about British and even French
>> intervention. The Trent incident was still echoing in his head...
>> and he knew that Europe was a very big customer for Southern grown
>> cotton, which the Union had placed an export tax upon to reduce
>> competition outside of the USA. A Confederate victory would have thus
>> lowered the price of Cotton in Europe....
>
>And some of the vicims of the 'Cotton Famine' in Manchester had sent
>Licoln a letter of support.....
So??? There was still support in England for the Confederacy...
enough support to build them ships anyway...
>> >> " My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is
>> >> not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union
>> >> without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by
>> >> freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by
>> >> freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do
>> >> about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps
>> >> to save the Union;"
>> >> --Abraham Lincoln
>> >> Letter to Horace Greely
>>
>> >And that brings me back to my original point, methinks.....
>>
>> Hmmm, I saw nothing from you that indicated that you believed that
>> Lincoln fought the Civil War for no other reason that to preserve the
>> union... so, you must be lying....
>
>My original pont about in relation to the state and 'gay marriage',
>you idiot! Do keep up!
<ROTFLMAO> So you admit that you lied when you claimed (just above)
that your original point had to do with Lincoln's "object" in the war
had nothing to do with slavery.. it was only, as he stated above, to
save the Union...
Dr. Barry Worthington
What have you got against chickens? "Tiyo kimosavi!"
But you do selectively snip things. The strange thing is why you
appear to be under the impression that other people might not
notice....
>
> >> Apparently, Worthington has learned that I was right about Britain's
> >> potential for allying with the South, but wasn't mature enough to
> >> admit it. so snips it and runs away....
>
> >I have learned nothing of the sort. I have learned that you are a
> >disagreable person inhabiting his own fantasy world...but then, I knew
> >that already....
>
> <LOL> Poor Worthington got taught a thing or two and now he's whining
> like a schoolgirl...
Indeed...in your little dreamworld....
He might have been concerned, but for other reasons. You still haven't
provided proof of the likelihood of British intervention. The nearest
it came to a casus belli was the afair of the Trent, but we all know
what happened there....
>
> >> >> >> >> >with the Confederates, since our Northern working class and Liberals
> >> >> >> >> >would never have permitted it.
>
> >> >> >> >> Not after Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation which meant
> >> >> >> >> that anyone taking the South's side was fighting for slavery..
>
> >> >> >> >Even before that.....
>
> >> >> >> Shortly before the E.P
>
> >> >> >Most decent people in Europe, ranging from John Bright to Garibaldi,
> >> >> >sided with Lincoln from the start......
>
> >> >> Side with Lincoln about what?
>
> >> >Slavery and emancipation....
>
> >> Strange, since Lincoln's primary focus was elsewhere and, as he
> >> stated, not necessarily even in compliance with.
>
> >You are starting to be incoherent......
>
> You need another lesson, Chicken Shit. Here it is:
>
> " My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is
> not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union
> without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by
> freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by
> freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do
> about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps
> to save the Union;"
> --Abraham Lincoln
> Letter to Horace Greely
You've already said that! What point are you trying to make? Other
than proving my original point about the Federal government not
wanting to interfere with slavery in the Confederate States?
But it was de jure, even if it might have been de facto. That's the
point. We might have a law permitting gay marriage, but it wouldn't
make you less of a bigot....
>
> >> >> >> The EP was specifically designed to tie the issue of slavery to the
> >> >> >> war.
>
> >> >> >Of course it was! But not for the reasons that you advamce. Not to
> >> >> >deter a British intervention on the part of the Confederates.
>
> >> >> <LOL> So for what reason(s) do you think he did it?
>
> >> >To convert the war into a crusade, of course....
>
> >> A crusade for what." .....certainly not for abolition because he
> >> stated that such was not the case.
>
> >Then why an Emancipation Proclamation?
>
> As I explained, it was a political move to tie the issue of slavery to
> the war.
It freed slaves and turned the war into a crusade...
>
> >> >a war that was forced
> >> >upon him.... But nothing to do with foreign intervention, least of
> >> >all from Britain....
>
> >> ..and yet Lincoln himself believed that "that favor or disfavor of
> >> foreign nations might have a material influence," as he said his
> >> letter to Manchester.
>
> >Upon the Confederates, you silly man!
>
> the quote continued to say... "that favor or disfavor of
> foreign nations might have a material influence in enlarging or
> prolonging the struggle with disloyal men in which the country
> is engaged."
>
> Now who was struggling with the disloyal men, Chicken Shit? certainly
> not the Confederates since they were the "disloyal men."
America, you silly man! Do you not have any powers of comprehension?
>
> >> Lincoln had been quite concerned about British and even French
> >> intervention. The Trent incident was still echoing in his head...
> >> and he knew that Europe was a very big customer for Southern grown
> >> cotton, which the Union had placed an export tax upon to reduce
> >> competition outside of the USA. A Confederate victory would have thus
> >> lowered the price of Cotton in Europe....
>
> >And some of the vicims of the 'Cotton Famine' in Manchester had sent
> >Licoln a letter of support.....
>
> So??? There was still support in England for the Confederacy...
> enough support to build them ships anyway...
But not majority support. The ships were paid for by the Confederates
themselves, by the way.
>
> >> >> " My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is
> >> >> not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union
> >> >> without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by
> >> >> freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by
> >> >> freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do
> >> >> about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps
> >> >> to save the Union;"
> >> >> --Abraham Lincoln
> >> >> Letter to Horace Greely
>
> >> >And that brings me back to my original point, methinks.....
>
> >> Hmmm, I saw nothing from you that indicated that you believed that
> >> Lincoln fought the Civil War for no other reason that to preserve the
> >> union... so, you must be lying....
>
> >My original pont about in relation to the state and 'gay marriage',
> >you idiot! Do keep up!
>
> <ROTFLMAO> So you admit that you lied when you claimed (just above)
> that your original point had to do with Lincoln's "object" in the war
> had nothing to do with slavery.. it was only, as he stated above, to
> save the Union...>Dr. Barry Worthington
My 'original point' in an argument or thread that you clearly cannot
follow...
I'm tired of this. It's like wrestling with a blancmange.....
Goodbye (definitely)
Steve
<sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote:
...name them...
You still haven't
>provided proof of the likelihood of British intervention. The nearest
>it came to a casus belli was the afair of the Trent, but we all know
>what happened there....
Actually, the Confederates spent time and money trying to woo England,
France and Spain into the war on their side. One of the ways was to
offer "cotton bonds" for sale in Europe. Some members of the British
Parliament bought these bonds and then, hoping to cash them for
cotton, pushed hard for recognition of the Confederacy. It dod not
happen, but here was a concerted effort in England to ally with the
Rebels. just the same.
<LOL> Diversion noted... Indeed, the war began primarily because
Lincoln, an abolitionist was elected. That Lincoln fought the war
pretty much with the sole purpose of preserving the Union (as he so
stated) does not belay the fact that he had campaigned hard for
abolition of Slavery and the South feared him for that reason. The
South seceded on the announcement of his winning the White House.
It seems that you are an unusually difficult student. I suspect that
you might have some learning disability.. have you looked into that?
<LOL> Really? So what makes you think that, Dummy...
BTW, your having a degree doesn't make you any less of a dishonest
moron.
>> >> >> >> The EP was specifically designed to tie the issue of slavery to the
>> >> >> >> war.
>>
>> >> >> >Of course it was! But not for the reasons that you advamce. Not to
>> >> >> >deter a British intervention on the part of the Confederates.
>>
>> >> >> <LOL> So for what reason(s) do you think he did it?
>>
>> >> >To convert the war into a crusade, of course....
>>
>> >> A crusade for what." .....certainly not for abolition because he
>> >> stated that such was not the case.
>>
>> >Then why an Emancipation Proclamation?
>>
>> As I explained, it was a political move to tie the issue of slavery to
>> the war.
>
>It freed slaves and turned the war into a crusade...
...and yet Lincoln specifically stated that freeing the slaves was not
his purpose... Did you have problems reading his words? Should I
convert them to a sound byte and send it to you?
>> >> >a war that was forced
>> >> >upon him.... But nothing to do with foreign intervention, least of
>> >> >all from Britain....
>>
>> >> ..and yet Lincoln himself believed that "that favor or disfavor of
>> >> foreign nations might have a material influence," as he said his
>> >> letter to Manchester.
>>
>> >Upon the Confederates, you silly man!
>>
>> the quote continued to say... "that favor or disfavor of
>> foreign nations might have a material influence in enlarging or
>> prolonging the struggle with disloyal men in which the country
>> is engaged."
>>
>> Now who was struggling with the disloyal men, Chicken Shit? certainly
>> not the Confederates since they were the "disloyal men."
>
>America, you silly man! Do you not have any powers of comprehension?
...and yet, just above you said that Lincoln's words were referring to
influence on the Confederates, now you say it's America...
Are you now struggling with trying to remember your own words? Are
you drinking, or just being dishonest?
I suppose you'll next divert further by claiming that the Confederates
were Americans too.....
So now you try to disavow your previous posts where you made claims
concerning slavery?
Worthington has some serous issues about being taught things... I
suspect that he'd like to believe that he already knows it all and my
slapping some knowledge into him interferes with that fantasy...
>I'm tired of this. It's like wrestling with a blancmange.....
Irony anyone?