Zodiacal light linked to ancient Martian oceans
Abdul Ahad
the ecliptic and best seen shortly after sunset and just before
sunsrise. On clear moonless nights, under ideal conditions, it is
supposedly equivalent to about one third of the night sky's total
light and should therefore outshine the Milky Way, except may be for
the dense central regions of our galaxy toward Sagittarius and
Scorpius.
The best explanation for its existence is down to extremely fine (0.1
to 0.2 micro-metre diameter) particles of ice and dust scattered by
comets in the main plain of our solar system over billions of years.
Just one thought occurred to me the other day. What if - a big 'if'- a
large proportion of its constituent particles are actually made up of
oxygen ions which are the remains of water from the ancient seas of
Mars?! Since Mars is thought to once have had a thicker atmosphere
and oceans of liquid water on its surface, could it be that the
Zodiacal light we see along the line of its orbital plane is actually
fossilised remains of an ancient Martian biosphere?
A rather wild and fanciful idea I'm sure...and someone will no doubt
tell me to stop day dreaming!
One question though: does the ESA or NASA have plans for any future
missions to study the Zodiacal light? A "SIPDA" mission (Solar system
In-Plane Debris Analyser) would seem like a good idea and may be able
to confirm if my above hypothesis is indeed totally groundless...
Abdul Ahad
http://uk.geocities.com/aa_spaceagent/
Robert Chafer
The material that makes up the Zodiacal light is quite young. The
pressure of sunlight causes the particles to either fall into the sun
or be 'blown' intot he outer solar system. The current estimate is
that material that makes up this light is less than 100000 years old
and therefore must be the result of recent collisions/comets etc.
aa_spa...@yahoo.co.uk (Abdul Ahad) wrote:
Robert Chafer
Doug...
aa_spa...@yahoo.co.uk says...
> That faint cone of light extending away from the sun along the line of
> the ecliptic and best seen shortly after sunset and just before
> sunsrise. On clear moonless nights, under ideal conditions, it is
> supposedly equivalent to about one third of the night sky's total
> light and should therefore outshine the Milky Way, except may be for
> the dense central regions of our galaxy toward Sagittarius and
> Scorpius.
>
> The best explanation for its existence is down to extremely fine (0.1
> to 0.2 micro-metre diameter) particles of ice and dust scattered by
> comets in the main plain of our solar system over billions of years.
>
> Just one thought occurred to me the other day. What if - a big 'if'- a
> large proportion of its constituent particles are actually made up of
> oxygen ions which are the remains of water from the ancient seas of
> Mars?! Since Mars is thought to once have had a thicker atmosphere
> and oceans of liquid water on its surface, could it be that the
> Zodiacal light we see along the line of its orbital plane is actually
> fossilised remains of an ancient Martian biosphere?
>
> A rather wild and fanciful idea I'm sure...and someone will no doubt
> tell me to stop day dreaming!
Well, the only thing that occurs to me is that the Martian water was
driven off by the solar wind, for the most part -- I find it somewat
difficult to understand how that mass could *decelerate* from Mars'
orbit to take up station within the inner solar system. It would seem
more likely that the mass of Mars' seas ended up being swept out to the
outer reaches of the solar system, instead.
I'm not an orbital dynamicist, though -- so I'd love to see people who
have more actual training in that field chime in here...
Hop David
Abdul Ahad wrote:
> That faint cone of light extending away from the sun along the line of
> the ecliptic and best seen shortly after sunset and just before
> sunsrise. On clear moonless nights, under ideal conditions, it is
> supposedly equivalent to about one third of the night sky's total
> light and should therefore outshine the Milky Way, except may be for
> the dense central regions of our galaxy toward Sagittarius and
> Scorpius.
>
> The best explanation for its existence is down to extremely fine (0.1
> to 0.2 micro-metre diameter) particles of ice and dust scattered by
> comets in the main plain of our solar system over billions of years.
>
> Just one thought occurred to me the other day. What if - a big 'if'- a
> large proportion of its constituent particles are actually made up of
> oxygen ions which are the remains of water from the ancient seas of
> Mars?! Since Mars is thought to once have had a thicker atmosphere
> and oceans of liquid water on its surface, could it be that the
> Zodiacal light we see along the line of its orbital plane is actually
> fossilised remains of an ancient Martian biosphere?
It seems to me volatiles of the inner system would gradually be boiled
off and pushed outward. Perhaps some part of the Kuiper belt, gas giants
& rest of the outer system used to reside in the inner system. But I
wouldn't venture even a WAG what this fraction would be.
So it's my opinion that at least part of the Gegenschein material comes
from the Mercury, Venus, Earth-Moon and Mars.
The words "Martian biosphere" seem to imply existence of Martian life.
I'm skeptical Martian life has ever existed.
--
Hop David
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html
Henry Spencer
Abdul Ahad <aa_spa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Just one thought occurred to me the other day. What if - a big 'if'- a
>large proportion of its constituent particles are actually made up of
>oxygen ions which are the remains of water from the ancient seas of
>Mars?!
Alas, such ions wouldn't stick around -- they would be carried out of the
solar system by the solar wind fairly promptly.
Also, I don't think you can get such broad-band scattering off oxygen ions
or atoms. They're too small to interact with light except by absorbing
and re-emitting it, and that happens only at certain wavelengths.
>One question though: does the ESA or NASA have plans for any future
>missions to study the Zodiacal light?
There have been occasional *instruments* used to study it -- in particular,
a fair bit of our knowledge about it comes from studies done on Pioneer 10
and Pioneer 11 -- but a dedicated mission is unlikely, because it's thought
reasonably well understood.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert | he...@spsystems.net
Henry Spencer
Hop David <hopspageHA...@tabletoptelephone.com> wrote:
>So it's my opinion that at least part of the Gegenschein material comes
>from the Mercury, Venus, Earth-Moon and Mars.
Current belief, last I heard, is that it's dust from small collisions in
the asteroid belt, being brought inward by Poynting-Robertson drag.
(Small dust particles in the solar system spiral inward into the Sun due
to complex light-pressure effects.) The Pioneer 10/11 observations, which
show its intensity rapidly dropping to zero as you pass outward through the
main belt, pretty much settled that.
Herb Schaltegger
Hop David <hopspageHA...@tabletoptelephone.com> wrote:
> The words "Martian biosphere" seem to imply existence of Martian life.
> I'm skeptical Martian life has ever existed.
I'm keeping an open mind, especially in light of (very) recent findings
of methane and possibly ammonia in the Martian atmosphere in amounts
which cannot be easily explained in the absence of biological processes.
--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Columbia Loss FAQ:
<http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html>
Mike Williams
>
>The material that makes up the Zodiacal light is quite young. The
>pressure of sunlight causes the particles to either fall into the sun
>or be 'blown' intot he outer solar system. The current estimate is
>that material that makes up this light is less than 100000 years old
>and therefore must be the result of recent collisions/comets etc.
I would have thought a cometary origin to be unlikely. Comet orbits are
at all sorts of angles to the ecliptic, but the material that causes the
Zodiacal light seems to be mainly in the ecliptic plane.
--
Mike Williams
Gentleman of Leisure
Hop David
Herb Schaltegger wrote:
> In article <40B8A9C3...@tabletoptelephone.com>,
> Hop David <hopspageHA...@tabletoptelephone.com> wrote:
>
>
>>The words "Martian biosphere" seem to imply existence of Martian life.
>>I'm skeptical Martian life has ever existed.
>
>
> I'm keeping an open mind, especially in light of (very) recent findings
> of methane
That is suggestive, but not conclusive. I would be delighted if
conclusive evidence shoots down my pessimism. It could happen!
and possibly ammonia in the Martian atmosphere in amounts
> which cannot be easily explained in the absence of biological processes.
>
I had heard about the methane but this ammonia is new to me.
Sander Vesik
> In article <40B8A9C3...@tabletoptelephone.com>,
> Hop David <hopspageHA...@tabletoptelephone.com> wrote:
>
> > The words "Martian biosphere" seem to imply existence of Martian life.
> > I'm skeptical Martian life has ever existed.
>
> I'm keeping an open mind, especially in light of (very) recent findings
> of methane and possibly ammonia in the Martian atmosphere in amounts
> which cannot be easily explained in the absence of biological processes.
>
Has anybody calculated how long a trace amount of methane would be present
in martian atmosphere? For that matter - can it be ruled out that martian
atmosphere didn't once conatin a lot of methane, most of which left?
Just curious, not trying to naysay its biological origin.
--
Sander
+++ Out of cheese error +++
Paul F. Dietz
> Has anybody calculated how long a trace amount of methane would be present
> in martian atmosphere?
The estimate I have seen is a few hundred years. The methane reacts
with hydroxyl radicals, which are produced by photolysis of water vapor.
Paul
Herb Schaltegger
Sander Vesik <san...@haldjas.folklore.ee> wrote:
Here's the initial press release/story from ESA regarding methane:
<http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Mars_Express/SEMZ0B57ESD_0.html>
I've read some follow-up stories since, specifically confirming ammonia
as well, but I don't have any links easily at hand.
David M. Palmer
> One question though: does the ESA or NASA have plans for any future
> missions to study the Zodiacal light? A "SIPDA" mission (Solar system
> In-Plane Debris Analyser) would seem like a good idea and may be able
> to confirm if my above hypothesis is indeed totally groundless...
There's a new paper about Zodiacal light measurements (specifically
doppler measurements) on the e-print server
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0405529
Specifically, it says that the particles' orbits are prograde,
eccentric, and with orbital inclinations up to 30 degrees.
I would intuitively expect the Poynting Roberston drag effect to damp
any initial eccentricities and circularize the orbit. The effect at
perihelion is to lower the aphelion, and vice-versa. Since the
particles are moving faster and in brighter sunshine at perihelion, I
would expect the effect to be larger there, so the aphelion decreases
faster than the perihelion, so the orbit circularizes.
I could also bend my intuition to believe that it increases
eccentricity (since it takes a smaller delta-v at aphelion to drop the
perihelion by a certain amount than vice-versa) but that's not what I
would guess.
Does anyone know offhand the actual effect of Poynting-Robertson drag
on eccentricity?
--
David M. Palmer dmpa...@email.com (formerly @clark.net, @ematic.com)
Dave Michelson
>
> Here's the initial press release/story from ESA regarding methane:
>
> <http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Mars_Express/SEMZ0B57ESD_0.html>
>
> I've read some follow-up stories since, specifically confirming ammonia as
> well, but I don't have any links easily at hand.
As of three weeks ago, the ESA team has refused to discuss whether ammonia,
benzene, and formaldehyde exist in the Martian atmosphere. They're still
analyzing their data and want to be certain. Expect something in September.
(What most people forget is that Pimental et al from UCB may have discovered
evidence of methane and ammonia using the IRS aboard Mariner 7 back in 1969.
So close!)
DESIGN AND FLIGHT OF THE MARINER MARS 1969 INFRARED SPECTROMETERS
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/science/kirkland/IRS/History1/irsHist.pdf
--
Dave Michelson
da...@ece.ubc.ca
Henry Spencer
David M. Palmer <dmpa...@email.com> wrote:
>Specifically, it says that the particles' orbits are prograde,
>eccentric, and with orbital inclinations up to 30 degrees.
>I would intuitively expect the Poynting Roberston drag effect to damp
It does... but the story is a bit more complicated than that.
First, yes, P-R drag does tend to reduce the eccentricity, circularizing
the orbit. *However*, the perihelion is also being reduced at the same
time, so the circularization may not be completed until the particle is
almost into the Sun anyway, in which case it spends most of its life in a
fairly elliptical orbit.
Second, for quite small particles, down in the micron and submicron range,
the simple outward force of light pressure becomes important too, and the
resulting evolution of the orbit is a complex balancing act. In that
range, the combined effects can pump eccentricity up (even to the point of
achieving solar-system escape) instead of reducing it.
Herb Schaltegger
Dave Michelson <da...@ece.ubc.ca> wrote:
I remember reading about the controversy concerning the Mariner 7
results, probably in the same recent story I read (somewhere) concerning
the possibility of ammonia. I seem to recall that whatever story I read
recently had to do with ground-based spectroscopic analysis but I can't
locate the story now with a quick google search.
I did re-read that initial ESA methane report and it is very
interesting. While the findings are only a few parts per billion,
methane should only last a couple hundred years in the Martian
atmosphere; the implication(s) are that it's being produced organically
and/or as a result of some on-going small-scale vulcanism somewhere on
the planet. And even if it's vulcanism, knowing what we now know of
life around volcanic vents on Earth, that kind of environment could
provide an abundant source of energy for the right kind of microbial
life.
Anyway, interesting stuff.
Andrew Gray
On 2004-05-30, Herb Schaltegger <herbsch...@spamtrap.invalid> wrote:
>
> I remember reading about the controversy concerning the Mariner 7
> results, probably in the same recent story I read (somewhere) concerning
> the possibility of ammonia. I seem to recall that whatever story I read
> recently had to do with ground-based spectroscopic analysis but I can't
> locate the story now with a quick google search.
I believe there are both MEX and ground-based observations pointing to
it. There are some good articles I ran across last night, summarised
here:
http://mainlymartian.blogs.com/semijournal/2004/04/where_have_we_g.html
and with interesting follow-on remarks summarised here:
http://mainlymartian.blogs.com/semijournal/2004/04/where_do_we_go_.html
"... if the methane were to be found not to be biogenic, it would be
something more than just an absence of evidence for life; it would be
something close to evidence for the absence of life."
(Has anyone else read /Mapping Mars/, BTW; I don't recall any mention of
it on ssh?)
> I did re-read that initial ESA methane report and it is very
> interesting. While the findings are only a few parts per billion,
> methane should only last a couple hundred years in the Martian
> atmosphere; the implication(s) are that it's being produced organically
> and/or as a result of some on-going small-scale vulcanism somewhere on
(...)
> Anyway, interesting stuff.
Indeed. I was reading a little about this last night (much to my great
chagrin, it appeared to have come out during my little unintentional
news blackout period), and I think the eventual decision was that
*whatever* is causing this, it's interesting; the three plausible
explanations involve geothermal activity, liquid water-based processes,
or Living Things. And any one of those three would be a wonderful bit of
news to be able to pin down.
--
-Andrew Gray
shim...@bigfoot.com
Sander Vesik
> In article <10858706...@haldjas.folklore.ee>,
> Sander Vesik <san...@haldjas.folklore.ee> wrote:
>
> > In sci.space.policy Herb Schaltegger <herbsch...@spamtrap.invalid> wrote:
> > > In article <40B8A9C3...@tabletoptelephone.com>,
> > > Hop David <hopspageHA...@tabletoptelephone.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > The words "Martian biosphere" seem to imply existence of Martian life.
> > > > I'm skeptical Martian life has ever existed.
> > >
> > > I'm keeping an open mind, especially in light of (very) recent findings
> > > of methane and possibly ammonia in the Martian atmosphere in amounts
> > > which cannot be easily explained in the absence of biological processes.
> > >
> >
> > Has anybody calculated how long a trace amount of methane would be present
> > in martian atmosphere? For that matter - can it be ruled out that martian
> > atmosphere didn't once conatin a lot of methane, most of which left?
> >
> > Just curious, not trying to naysay its biological origin.
>
> Here's the initial press release/story from ESA regarding methane:
>
> <http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Mars_Express/SEMZ0B57ESD_0.html>
But that could be caused by occasional out-gassing from volcanic processes
deep down inside the planet, no? Say once a century or even more seldom?
It would be inetersting to see if the distribution is uniform and if the
amount is constant or declining over time.
>
> I've read some follow-up stories since, specifically confirming ammonia
> as well, but I don't have any links easily at hand.
>
--
Mary Shafer
wrote:
> In article <40B8A9C3...@tabletoptelephone.com>,
> Hop David <hopspageHA...@tabletoptelephone.com> wrote:
> >So it's my opinion that at least part of the Gegenschein material comes
> >from the Mercury, Venus, Earth-Moon and Mars.
>
> Current belief, last I heard, is that it's dust from small collisions in
> the asteroid belt, being brought inward by Poynting-Robertson drag.
> (Small dust particles in the solar system spiral inward into the Sun due
> to complex light-pressure effects.) The Pioneer 10/11 observations, which
> show its intensity rapidly dropping to zero as you pass outward through the
> main belt, pretty much settled that.
Quick, another tee shirt. Henry, everyone knows it's dust from all
the baby teeth collected by the Tooth Fairy and launched into space.
The teeth are powdered and the particles charged so they move by
mutual repulsion.
Mary
--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
mil...@qnet.com
Abdul Ahad
On the other hand, if the Zodiacal/Gegenschein particles showed a
moderately reddish hue (spectroscopically) then they could have mainly
come from the surface of Mars through some catastrophic past impacts.
E.g. the Hellas impact basin on Mars' southern hemisphere formed when
all hell broke loose off the Red Planet - that's why its been named
'Hellas'!
If the ancient seas of Mars indeed boiled away into space and somehow
managed to remain molecular and particulate as opposed to becoming
totally ionised, then billions of years of outward pushing by the
solar wind will have scattered them over distant Kuiper Belt objects
(KBOs).
Now the martian air of present times contains an abundance of red
particles thrown up by dust storms, and if these were caught up during
the phase of ocean evaporation through some past meteoritic impacts,
then the colour of Mars will have spread right across the solar
system. The Antarctic Mars meteorite was probably one fragment from
such an explosion, coming inward toward the inner solar system and
landing on Earth.
And the pieces/particles that went outward? They could have
contributed to the colouration of otherwise perfectly white, icy
surfaces of KBOs...
On the latest mysteries surrounding a KBO, I quote: "... notable
features of Sedna include its size and reddish color. After Mars, it
is the second reddest object in the solar system."
Full story: http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0403/15sedna/
The possibilities and speculations are endless and your Tooth Fairy
idea is as good an explanation as any other!
Abdul Ahad
http://uk.geocities.com/aa_spaceagent/
Robert Chafer
> Well, the only thing that occurs to me is that the Martian water was
> driven off by the solar wind, for the most part -- I find it somewat
> difficult to understand how that mass could *decelerate* from Mars'
> orbit to take up station within the inner solar system. It would seem
> more likely that the mass of Mars' seas ended up being swept out to the
> outer reaches of the solar system, instead.
>
> I'm not an orbital dynamicist, though -- so I'd love to see people who
> have more actual training in that field chime in here...
I think it depends on the size of the dust grain. Small grains get
pushed by solar radiation and larger ones get dragged towards the sun
(Something called Ponyting Robertson drag:
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Poynting-Robertson%20drag)
Robert Chafer
Hop David
If Pioneer 10/11 indicates rapid drop off past the main belt I don't see
how Sedna could be colored by the same dust cloud.
Collisions between asteroids seems a much more plausible explanation to me.
Doug...
san...@haldjas.folklore.ee says...
> In sci.space.policy Herb Schaltegger <herbsch...@spamtrap.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <10858706...@haldjas.folklore.ee>,
> > Sander Vesik <san...@haldjas.folklore.ee> wrote:
> >
> > > In sci.space.policy Herb Schaltegger <herbsch...@spamtrap.invalid> wrote:
> > > > In article <40B8A9C3...@tabletoptelephone.com>,
> > > > Hop David <hopspageHA...@tabletoptelephone.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The words "Martian biosphere" seem to imply existence of Martian life.
> > > > > I'm skeptical Martian life has ever existed.
> > > >
> > > > I'm keeping an open mind, especially in light of (very) recent findings
> > > > of methane and possibly ammonia in the Martian atmosphere in amounts
> > > > which cannot be easily explained in the absence of biological processes.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Has anybody calculated how long a trace amount of methane would be present
> > > in martian atmosphere? For that matter - can it be ruled out that martian
> > > atmosphere didn't once conatin a lot of methane, most of which left?
> > >
> > > Just curious, not trying to naysay its biological origin.
> >
> > Here's the initial press release/story from ESA regarding methane:
> >
> > <http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Mars_Express/SEMZ0B57ESD_0.html>
>
> But that could be caused by occasional out-gassing from volcanic processes
> deep down inside the planet, no? Say once a century or even more seldom?
> It would be inetersting to see if the distribution is uniform and if the
> amount is constant or declining over time.
From the looks of what I've seen, I think you can pretty well conclude
that Mars is not "teeming" with either life or volcanic activity.
Whatever is causing the methane and ammonia signatures is probably
fairly minor and localized. (Remember, even the indications of ice in
the regolith shows that it's not at all global -- it's somewhat
localized and not characteristic of the entire Martian surface.)
It would be good to see just how widespread these results are, though --
and to see if there's any correlation between the methane/ammonia
signatures and particular forms of topography or geology...
Pat Flannery
Doug... wrote:
>From the looks of what I've seen, I think you can pretty well conclude
>that Mars is not "teeming" with either life or volcanic activity.
>
There were those observations of the "hot spots" that could be some sort
of geothermally created features in the Hellas basin- the ones that may
have ice towers around them from water vapor in their emissions freezing
that were reported a few months back.
Pat
Abdul Ahad
The dust clouds thrown off Mars by meteorite impacts that created
basins like Hellas happened a very long time ago, possibly in the
early solar system when the environment was a lot more violent and
dynamic. Over long periods of time outbound solar wind pressure will
have gradually pushed off any fine particles thrown up in such impacts
outward off this side of the asteroid belt and beyond the outer solar
system onward into interstellar space.
Hence the recent Pioneer results are not at odds with my comments.
>
> Collisions between asteroids seems a much more plausible explanation to me.
Interesting idea and they are certain to happen with the passage of
time, but have any mutual collisions between asteroids been observed
recently? Without doing the sums and pinning down the statistical
derivations, I would guess the probability of impacts between a planet
and an asteroid is much greater than that between an asteroid and
another asteroid.
Hop David
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s917757.htm
& Ron Miller had done some amazing painting of these but I can't find
them now.
Scott Hedrick
"Abdul Ahad" <aa_spa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3416b228.04060...@posting.google.com...
>I would guess the probability of impacts between a planet
> and an asteroid is much greater than that between an asteroid and
> another asteroid.
Except that the evidence clearly indicates that asteroid-asteroid collisions
were once quite common. Asteroids can fairly easily be divided into
families, with common compositions and rotations, indicative of having one
been part of a common body. Interactions with Jupiter has helped to separate
individual bodies, but they can still be grouped together by composition and
rotation.
Sander Vesik
No - unless it is very recent and happens in only one area then it will
be very well dispersed. It stays around for a hundred pus years - consider
how many global dust storms will happen in that time.
What you really need is recording the average for a decade, then you'll start
to have an idea how much this is a steady flow vs. occasional "burps"
>
> Doug
> dvan...@NOSPAM.mn.rr.com
Henry Spencer
Abdul Ahad <aa_spa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>The dust clouds thrown off Mars by meteorite impacts that created
>basins like Hellas happened a very long time ago, possibly in the
>early solar system when the environment was a lot more violent and
Except that we know that dust particles in the inner solar system have a
fairly short life by astronomical standards. The smallest ones get blown
out by light pressure (which is not the solar wind, please note -- the
solar wind is the plasma streaming outward, not the light), the bigger
ones spiral down into the Sun because of Poynting-Robertson drag. Any
particles blown off Hellas billions of years ago are long gone.
>Over long periods of time outbound solar wind pressure will
>have gradually pushed off any fine particles thrown up in such impacts
>outward off this side of the asteroid belt and beyond the outer solar
>system onward into interstellar space.
Were this true, it should have cleared the solar system of such particles
completely. There shouldn't be any left in the inner solar system to make
the Zodiacal Light, and there most certainly shouldn't be a relatively
sharp drop-off in particle density as you go out past the Main Belt.
>> Collisions between asteroids seems a much more plausible explanation to me.
>
>Interesting idea and they are certain to happen with the passage of
>time, but have any mutual collisions between asteroids been observed
>recently?
Collisions between *large* asteroids -- the ones we actually observe
easily -- happen extremely rarely on a human time scale. The Belt is big
and they are very thinly spread. But add in much larger numbers of
smaller objects, and operate on a time scale of millions of years, and you
do get rather a lot of dust.
There is direct evidence for this, too. Most meteorites are made of very
old rock (etc.), solid for billions of years by isotope dating... but
cosmic-ray-track dating generally shows that they have been exposed to
open space for millions, not billions, of years. That is, they've been
parts of larger bodies, deep enough inside to be shielded against cosmic
rays, until quite recently. They're the larger chips from the same
collisions that produce the dust.
>...I would guess the probability of impacts between a planet
>and an asteroid is much greater than that between an asteroid and
>another asteroid.
Except that there are thousands of visible asteroids, and much larger
numbers of smaller ones, all orbiting in the same general volume of space,
and only a handful of planets and their orbits don't cross the asteroid
belt.
Christopher M. Jones
> There is direct evidence for this, too. Most meteorites are made of very
> old rock (etc.), solid for billions of years by isotope dating... but
> cosmic-ray-track dating generally shows that they have been exposed to
> open space for millions, not billions, of years. That is, they've been
> parts of larger bodies, deep enough inside to be shielded against cosmic
> rays, until quite recently. They're the larger chips from the same
> collisions that produce the dust.
My gut instinct is that the most common collisions are
between large(ish) asteroids and tiny(ish) rocks. Small
asteroids are too unlikely to hit each other, even over
kajillions of years. Large ones are not numerous enough
to hit each other often. But largish asteroids have
enough gravity to pull in the inumerable little ones
over a fairly large "cross-section". Except for the very
largest asteroids, any reasonable impacts will create a
sizeable amount of debris (from both objects) with
velocities greater than escape. Though the few
large/large hits may contribute disproportionally to the
dust and meteroid population.
Abdul Ahad
> In article <3416b228.04060...@posting.google.com>,
> Abdul Ahad <aa_spa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >The dust clouds thrown off Mars by meteorite impacts that created
> >basins like Hellas happened a very long time ago, possibly in the
> >early solar system when the environment was a lot more violent and
> >dynamic...
>
> Except that we know that dust particles in the inner solar system have a
> fairly short life by astronomical standards. The smallest ones get blown
> out by light pressure (which is not the solar wind, please note -- the
> solar wind is the plasma streaming outward, not the light), the bigger
> ones spiral down into the Sun because of Poynting-Robertson drag. Any
> particles blown off Hellas billions of years ago are long gone.
>
On a slight change of topic (party pooper!)...
Henry,
How is the MOST mission performing as of late, and are we due any
science releases in the near future? A tiny suitcase sized
microsatellite, carrying a 15cm aperture telescope launched with some
highly aspirational stellar observation goals... I'm very intrigued.
Abdul Ahad
Henry Spencer
Abdul Ahad <aa_spa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>On a slight change of topic (party pooper!)...
>science releases in the near future?
The spacecraft is doing very well. Some modest computer problems seen
shortly after launch are still the only electronics problems... which is a
relief, since it's all commercial components in a relatively high LEO that
gets a fair bit of radiation. We're hoping for a working life of several
years; the nominal primary mission is one year, but there's funding for
two years of operations and agreement in principle for two more.
Commissioning took longer than expected, but operations are now smooth and
essentially fully automated. If everybody went on vacation for a week, no
data would be lost.
Pointing precision is now much better than specified despite a stray-light
problem in the camera, and improving steadily as further software tweaks
are done. Which is good, because the astronomers thought that science
performance would be relatively unaffected by pointing jitter below the
original spec, but they were wrong -- every time the pointing gets better,
the data gets better. Achieved photometric precision now is 1ppm for
bright stars; even Hubble isn't quite that good, aside from being in the
wrong orbit for this sort of work.
I should add at this point that the credit for essentially all of this
goes to other people; I was involved in design and development in a modest
way, but haven't had anything to do with commissioning and operations.
The observations so far have been all astrophysics. There is considerable
interest in planet detection (by seeing brightness changes of the total
star+planet system as the planet goes through phases), but the first good
target star for that hasn't entered the continuous-viewing zone yet.
As for science releases, my understanding is that after some lengthy
arguments about whether the evidence was really good enough for some of
the conclusions, the first paper has cleared the editorial hurdles at
Nature and is in the pipeline for publication. However, it's not "on the
street" yet, so I can't talk about it (and I actually don't know very much
about it -- the astronomers are doing all the data analysis and they
haven't been saying much).
Abdul Ahad
> In article <3416b228.04060...@posting.google.com>,
> Abdul Ahad <aa_spa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >On a slight change of topic (party pooper!)...
> >How is the MOST mission performing as of late, and are we due any
> >science releases in the near future?
>
> interest in planet detection (by seeing brightness changes of the total
> star+planet system as the planet goes through phases), but the first good
> target star for that hasn't entered the continuous-viewing zone yet.
>
Observing minute light variations due to phase changes of the orbiting
planet as well as a drop in the total light due to silhouetting
transits would be nothing short of revolutionary over current methods
of exoplanet detection. Do you happen to know the particular target
star(s) first on the list and when the first continuous viewing
schedules will commence?
Many thanks for the update, I shall keenly await some hopefully good
results soon...
Meanwhile, we are all no doubt fired up to see the light variations of
our own star tomorrow as one of "our" planets (i.e. Venus) makes its
epic transitory passage across its disk - the first since 1882!
Abdul Ahad
http://uk.geocities.com/aa_spaceagent/
Derek Lyons
>Pointing precision is now much better than specified despite a stray-light
>problem in the camera, and improving steadily as further software tweaks
>are done. Which is good, because the astronomers thought that science
>performance would be relatively unaffected by pointing jitter below the
>original spec, but they were wrong -- every time the pointing gets better,
>the data gets better.
Which is interesting because you posted earlier that the spec was
lowered (I.E. reduced pointing accuracy) to reduce the cost. (IIRC.)
When I questioned the validity of this, you insisted that it was OK
because everyone was happy.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
Henry Spencer
Abdul Ahad <aa_spa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> interest in planet detection (by seeing brightness changes of the total
>>
>This is the area that I'm most keen to see the first results from.
>Observing minute light variations due to phase changes of the orbiting
>planet as well as a drop in the total light due to silhouetting
>transits would be nothing short of revolutionary over current methods
>of exoplanet detection.
Actual transits are likely to be rare, because it requires such fussy
alignment. The nice thing about observing phase is that it's workable
over a much wider range of angles.
>Do you happen to know the particular target
>star(s) first on the list and when the first continuous viewing
>schedules will commence?
Don't know the star, alas. Observations should start sometime soon -- it
was described as "a couple of months away" in late April.
Henry Spencer
Derek Lyons <derek...@nospamyahoo.com> wrote:
>>Pointing precision is now much better than specified despite a stray-light
>>problem in the camera, and improving steadily as further software tweaks
>
>Which is interesting because you posted earlier that the spec was
>lowered (I.E. reduced pointing accuracy) to reduce the cost. (IIRC.)
>When I questioned the validity of this, you insisted that it was OK
>because everyone was happy.
Nope, you need to run some diagnostics on that memory, Derek. :-)
What we compromised on, as I described earlier, was not pointing, but
guaranteed data volume.
The pointing spec has remained unchanged; it's important to the data
quality and would have been relaxed only as a last resort. Once the
stray-light problem was sorted out, pointing was slightly better than the
spec, and has improved quite a bit since.
The compromise was on whether the astronomers could always get all the
data they wanted. Essentially, the science data is two streams. The
first is summary information from on-board data reduction: brightness
measurements, supporting information, data-quality estimates, etc. The
second is essentially compressed images, what the Science CCD actually
saw. The astronomers want both so they can track the performance of the
data reduction, re-reduce old data if desired, and watch for unexpected
problems.
To keep the radio cost under control, only the first stream is deemed
vital: delivery of the second stream is on a best-effort basis, subject
to preemption in certain situations. This bit of flexibility avoided a
big cost jump and incurred a fairly small penalty in results. And yes,
the astronomers were happy with it, since they wanted MOST to fly rather
than be canceled for cost overruns. Which could have happened if the data
volume had been a rigid requirement that nobody was allowed to mess with.
Kieran A. Carroll
> In article <3416b228.04060...@posting.google.com>,
> Abdul Ahad <aa_spa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> interest in planet detection (by seeing brightness changes of the total
> >> star+planet system as the planet goes through phases)...
> >>
> >This is the area that I'm most keen to see the first results from.
> >Observing minute light variations due to phase changes of the orbiting
> >planet as well as a drop in the total light due to silhouetting
> >transits would be nothing short of revolutionary over current methods
> >of exoplanet detection.
>
> Actual transits are likely to be rare, because it requires such fussy
> alignment. The nice thing about observing phase is that it's workable
> over a much wider range of angles.
>
> >Do you happen to know the particular target
> >star(s) first on the list and when the first continuous viewing
> >schedules will commence?
>
> Don't know the star, alas. Observations should start sometime soon -- it
> was described as "a couple of months away" in late April.
Check out http://www.astro.ubc.ca/MOST/targetstars.html for a list of
target stars. The first planetary-reflecytion target is 51 Pegasi; I
think we'll be seeing that in August or September.
Kieran A. Carroll
> In article <3416b228.04060...@posting.google.com>,
> Abdul Ahad <aa_spa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >On a slight change of topic (party pooper!)...
> >How is the MOST mission performing as of late, and are we due any
> >science releases in the near future?
>
> arguments about whether the evidence was really good enough for some of
> the conclusions, the first paper has cleared the editorial hurdles at
> Nature and is in the pipeline for publication. However, it's not "on the
> street" yet, so I can't talk about it (and I actually don't know very much
> about it -- the astronomers are doing all the data analysis and they
> haven't been saying much).
The paper in question will be published in Nature on July 1. The date
was chosen by Nature as being the first anniversary of MOST's launch;
it'll also make for a nice birthday present for Canada, in return for
the CDN$10M that Canada spent on MOST :-) There will be a press
conference associated with this (either at UBC in Vancouver, or at CSA
in Montreal, TBD), on June 30; I'm hoping to be there...
- Kieran A. Carroll
Dynacon
Kieran A. Carroll
A clarification: the original desired pointing spec for MOST was 1
arc-second (that's "original" in the sense of being the pointing
accuracy that the original PI for the mission asked me if we could
achieve, in the first 5 minutes on conversation when he broached the
MOST mission concept with me). I became pretty sure that would be
achievable, based on the original concept for the MOST star tracker
software, which assumed we'd use sub-pixel interpolation. We spent the
next year or so trying to determine if this could be done affordably,
in the sense of being able to afford the electrical power to carry out
the amount of computation needed to run our algorithm in sub-pixel
interpolation mode. (Note that the power budget for our star tracker
is only about half that of typical star trackers on the market at that
time, yet we had to deal with much fainter target stars due to our
extremely narrow field of view).
This question remained unanswered as of the end of the Phase A study;
we basically needed to develop the algorithm and benchmark-test it on
a target processor to answer that question, and that wasn't do-able by
then (we finally got that done a few years later). So, we fell back on
a mission design approach, in which the astronomers added a Fabry
lenslet array to the science detector, to make it able to tolerate
relatively large (25 arc-sec) pointing errors; this allowed us to
baseline pixel-level star tracking, which (by then) we had figured out
how to do in a way that we thought was afforable (from a power
perspective).
So, the pointing requirement was loosened up mainly for
risk-mitigation reasons, not cost reasons. (We were mitigating the
risk of a significant increase in power consumption, which might have
turned into just a cost driver, if larger solar arrays were called
for...or, it might have forced the satellite to be too big to fit the
available secondary-payload volume envelope.)
What's happened since launch? We found that the Fabry lenslets didn't
work so well; after about 9 arc-sec pointing error, the photometry got
bad enough that science team would have had to do significant work to
post-process it to clean out noise (original target for this was 25
arc-sec). Fortunately, the pointing we were achieving at first was
about 9 arc-sec (as we had predicted via simulations back in the
preliminary design phase). Then, we found a clever, computationally
efficient way to add sub-pixel interpolation to the star tracker
algorithm. We're now getting star tracker measurement accuracy of
something like 0.3-0.6 arc-sec (0.1-0.2 pixel) RMS, based on the <1
arc-sec RMS pointing error being routinely achieved.
- Kieran A. Carroll
Dynacon
(Original system architect and program manager for MOST, 'way back
when :-)
Henry Spencer
Kieran A. Carroll <k...@dynacon.ca> wrote:
>> Which is interesting because you posted earlier that the spec was
>> lowered (I.E. reduced pointing accuracy) to reduce the cost. (IIRC.)
>> When I questioned the validity of this, you insisted that it was OK
>> because everyone was happy.
>
>arc-second (that's "original" in the sense of being the pointing
>accuracy that the original PI for the mission asked me if we could
And another clarification: I'd completely forgotten that the original
hope was for that level of pointing accuracy -- it was before my time on
the project -- and as I noted in my response to Derek, pointing accuracy
was *not* in fact the topic of the earlier discussion.
Derek Lyons
>and as I noted in my response to Derek, pointing accuracy
>was *not* in fact the topic of the earlier discussion.
I did weasel with IIRC :)
But this discussion has been MOST er... illuminating.
Christopher M. Jones
> The paper in question will be published in Nature on July 1. The date
> was chosen by Nature as being the first anniversary of MOST's launch;
> it'll also make for a nice birthday present for Canada, in return for
> the CDN$10M that Canada spent on MOST :-) There will be a press
> conference associated with this (either at UBC in Vancouver, or at CSA
> in Montreal, TBD), on June 30; I'm hoping to be there...
Ummm, also, July 1st is Canada day, formerly Dominion day.
It's likely that the publishers and editors of Nature, a
British mag. (at least nominally), were aware of this too.
See, proof that not all us 'merkins are ignorant of
Canadialand.
Andrew Gray
Four lines up...
"it'll also make for a nice birthday present for Canada"
HTH. ;-)
--
-Andrew Gray
shim...@bigfoot.com
Christopher M. Jones
My bad, I thought you meant MOST's birthday there.
Especially since Canada Day isn't really a birthday
in any meaningful sense. Although I guess some
Canadians take it as one for convenience (since it's
not nearly as fun to hold barbecues on Dec. 11th).
Dave Michelson
>
> Especially since Canada Day isn't really a birthday
> in any meaningful sense.
http://canadaonline.about.com/cs/canadada1/
"Every July 1 Canadians everywhere celebrate the birth of Canada as a nation.
These resources should get you in the mood for the birthday party!"
Etc.
--
Dave Michelson
da...@ece.ubc.ca
Kieran A. Carroll
Canadian historical trivia, definitely off-topic for these groups,
but...
I hadn't given any thought to the "Why July 1" question before. Your
message prompted me to search for an answer. I see from
http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/ca_1867.html that
the British North America Act of 1867 states,
"II. UNION.
"3. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice of Her
Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, to declare by Proclamation
that, on and after the passing of this Act, the Provinces of Canada,
Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion under
the Name of Canada; and on and after that Day those Three Provinces
shall form and be One Dominion under that Name accordingly."
According to a footnote to this paragraph on that web page, "The first
day of July, 1867, was fixed by proclamation dated May 22, 1867."
According to http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Canada%20Day,
what that means is that "it was proclaimed in force effective on July
1, 1867."
So...what's the significance of Dec. 11?
- Kieran
Martin Frey
>According to a footnote to this paragraph on that web page, "The first
>day of July, 1867, was fixed by proclamation dated May 22, 1867."
They had a web page on May 2nd 1867? Those Victorians would stop at
nothing.
--
Martin Frey
http://www.hadastro.org.uk
N 51 02 E 0 47
Christopher M. Jones
> So...what's the significance of Dec. 11?
Statute of Westminster.
Henry Spencer
Christopher M. Jones <marmite...@dualboot.net> wrote:
>> So...what's the significance of Dec. 11?
>
>Statute of Westminster.
Hardly. That neither started the process of Canada's independence nor
completed it. (In fact, the start of the process goes back rather earlier
than Confederation, to the rebellions of 1837 and 1838, which the British
responded to -- far more sensibly then they had to similar unrest farther
south -- with reforms and action toward self-government.)
One might as well wonder why Americans persist in celebrating on the 4th
of July, when the US realistically more-or-less completed becoming a
nation on, um, well, perhaps Oct. 18th, or June 21st, or July 26th, or
March 4th, or May 29th, or even Dec. 24th.
Those are the dates of, respectively, the surrender of remaining British
forces in the US, the ratification of the Constitution by the 9th state
(that being what the Constitution specified as sufficient), ratification
of the Constitution by New York (last of the states deemed essential in
practice), effective date of the Constitution (by resolution of the
Continental Congress, responding to the New York ratification), the
ratification of the Constitution by the last of the original states (Rhode
Island, over a year later), and the Treaty of Ghent (ending the War of
1812, by which Britain finally formally acknowledged US independence a
quarter of a century later).
James Nicoll
Henry Spencer <he...@spsystems.net> wrote:
>In article <TItzc.131$eH3.1...@news.uswest.net>,
>Christopher M. Jones <marmite...@dualboot.net> wrote:
>>> So...what's the significance of Dec. 11?
>>
>>Statute of Westminster.
>
>Hardly. That neither started the process of Canada's independence nor
>completed it. (In fact, the start of the process goes back rather earlier
>than Confederation, to the rebellions of 1837 and 1838, which the British
>responded to -- far more sensibly then they had to similar unrest farther
>south -- with reforms and action toward self-government.)
>
because for the first time in history, the Canadian Governor General was
present at the same ceremony as the Queen. Normally you get one or the
other, and while the Queen is the Queen of Canada, the GG is the person
whose appointment we currently have control over.
Although I suppose there's no reason we couldn't spin off a
local franchise of the Windsors, it would ruin the entire "the head
of state gets no funds from the government, isn't local and can be
barred from entering the country if we choose" thing we have going
on now.
--
"The keywords for tonight are Caution and Flammability."
JFK, _Bubba Ho Tep_
Peter Fairbrother
> Although I suppose there's no reason we couldn't spin off a
> local franchise of the Windsors, it would ruin the entire "the head
> of state gets no funds from the government, isn't local and can be
> barred from entering the country if we choose" thing we have going
> on now.
Ha! You Canadians are so loyal to the UK monarchy that you still celebrate
Queen Victoria's birthday!
No-one in the UK would even be able to tell you what month it was in (except
me, but only because I was in Canada for the last one).
--
Peter Fairbrother
James Nicoll
Peter Fairbrother <zenad...@zen.co.uk> wrote:
>James Nicoll wrote:
>
>
>> Although I suppose there's no reason we couldn't spin off a
>> local franchise of the Windsors, it would ruin the entire "the head
>> of state gets no funds from the government, isn't local and can be
>> barred from entering the country if we choose" thing we have going
>> on now.
>
>Ha! You Canadians are so loyal to the UK monarchy that you still celebrate
>Queen Victoria's birthday!
No, we're loyal to the _Canadian_ monarchy. The Queen of Canada just
happens to be the same person as the QoE. Queen Vickie is a former QoC.
Now, granted, until QEII, that was a distinction that didn't
get made, but they are now separate positions.
>No-one in the UK would even be able to tell you what month it was in (except
>me, but only because I was in Canada for the last one).
It's an excuse to Blow Stuff Up and you can never have too many of
those.
Pat Flannery
James Nicoll wrote:
> It's an excuse to Blow Stuff Up and you can never have too many of
>those.
>
Just ask George Bush Jr. ...
Pat
Laura Halliday
> The paper in question will be published in Nature on July 1. The date
> was chosen by Nature as being the first anniversary of MOST's launch;
> it'll also make for a nice birthday present for Canada, in return for
> the CDN$10M that Canada spent on MOST :-) There will be a press
> conference associated with this (either at UBC in Vancouver, or at CSA
> in Montreal, TBD), on June 30; I'm hoping to be there...
So what ever happened to the amateur payload on MOST?
Laura Halliday VE7LDH "Que les nuages soient notre
Grid: CN89mg pied a terre..."
ICBM: 49 16.05 N 122 56.92 W - Hospital/Shafte
Andrew Gray
On 2004-06-15, Peter Fairbrother <zenad...@zen.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Ha! You Canadians are so loyal to the UK monarchy that you still celebrate
> Queen Victoria's birthday!
>
> No-one in the UK would even be able to tell you what month it was in (except
> me, but only because I was in Canada for the last one).
It sort-of got observed here. Well, some people took the day off, and I
think the buses ran a holiday service. (THe NHS didn't, sadly).
Certainly it used to be observed at the school I was at - at least, I'm
sure it was - which wasn't very long ago or in Canada...
--
-Andrew Gray
shim...@bigfoot.com
Odysseus
>
> It's an excuse to Blow Stuff Up and you can never have too many of
> those.
The British do that on November 5, but I don't think they get a
holiday for the occasion.
--
Odysseus
Tim Auton
We don't. We get a feeble number of bank holidays (as national
holidays are called here) every year, 8 or 9 IIRC. The rest of Europe
have a dozen or more.
Tim
--
My last .sig was rubbish too.
John Schilling
>>Statute of Westminster.
To put it bluntly, so what? Most of those dates are pivotal to the creation
of a *government*, and Americans don't generally consider that to be an
event worthy of celebration. The remaining, are about British *recognition*
of US independence; recognition of a thing is not the thing itself, and in
any event it's our celebration so what do we care what the Brits think?
The Declaration of Independence, and of course there's plenty of dates that
you can pin that to, marks *American* recognition of American indepenence.
That's the day everything changed from, "We here in the Colonies demand our
full rights as Englishmen!", to, "This here is the United States of America,
which is our nation which we'll kick you lot out of and form a government
for when we get around to it!". The date the nation was born, as opposed to
the date the nation was recognized or the date the nation was effectively
governed.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
Odysseus
employees only have a right to about eight or nine "statutory
holidays"; union contracts sometimes include a few more. I believe
the highest minimum vacation entitlement is three weeks per year --
again, much less than in Europe -- and is obtained after five years
of service.
--
Odysseus
Pat Flannery
Tim Auton wrote:
>We don't. We get a feeble number of bank holidays (as national
>holidays are called here) every year, 8 or 9 IIRC. The rest of Europe
>have a dozen or more.
>
What would one do if one ran out of cheese on a bank holiday?
...the Moon is supposed to be _made_ of cheese, you know.... :-)
Wallace
Christopher M. Jones
July 4th is the date on which several British colonies
in America united together and declared the intention to
retain permanent independence from Britain, which they
made good on during the Revolutionary War and later
defeated other attacks on its declared independence (by
Britain and others). There is no analogous date for
Canada because no analogous developments occured in
Canada, which acquired independence through an
entirely different process.
Additionally, the British system of governance and laws
does not make for good anniversaries, since it often
proceeds incrementally over long time periods through
changes in traditions, and common law precedent rather
than in step-wise fashion. Nevertheless, the most
closely analogous event in Canada to America's act of
settings itself in principle independent from
external rule is the Statute of Westminster. That
act made Canada substantially independent of British
rule, though it did not complete the process of
independence (as that process has NOT been completed
even now).
Scott Hedrick
"Christopher M. Jones" <marmite...@dualboot.net> wrote in message
news:XHKyc.46$g82....@news.uswest.net...
(since it's
> not nearly as fun to hold barbecues on Dec. 11th).
"Hey, you hosers! Back off from the grill! I can't get the fork in there to
turn the meat!
Scott Hedrick
"Dave Michelson" <da...@ece.ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:nELyc.739254$oR5.226593@pd7tw3no...
> "Every July 1 Canadians everywhere celebrate the birth of Canada as a
nation.
July 1, July 4- see, Canadians are practically Americans!
Scott Hedrick
"Henry Spencer" <he...@spsystems.net> wrote in message
news:HzC3A...@spsystems.net...
> (In fact, the start of the process goes back rather earlier
> than Confederation, to the rebellions of 1837 and 1838, which the British
> responded to -- far more sensibly then they had to similar unrest farther
> south -- with reforms and action toward self-government.)
Nice program recently on PBS- "Rebels and Redcoats: How Britain Lost
America".
Hadn't really thought of it as a civil war before.
Herb Schaltegger
"Scott Hedrick" <din...@KILLALLSPAMMERSyahoo.com> wrote:
Read a pretty good book two summers ago (can't remember the author)
called "The Cousins' Wars" which analyzed the American Revolution and
the American Civil War and highlighted the fundamental similarities of
nature and culture (ethnic, religious, economic, etc) between the
warring sides in each conflict; it is very interesting to note just how
similar - to an historian, at least - the sides were in each conflict
and how small the fundamental differences were which drove the conflicts.
--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity."
~ Robert A. Heinlein
<http://www.angryherb.net>
Scott Hedrick
"Herb Schaltegger" <herb.sch...@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:herb.schaltegger-83...@news.newsguy.com...
> and how small the fundamental differences were which drove the conflicts.
The tax thing was bogus, anyway. I mean, every one of the founding fathers
would have strokes if they had any idea the tax burden that we've allowed
ourselves to carry today.
Etok
It's expensive keeping General Dynamics and Boeing afloat.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
Christopher M. Jones
> Read a pretty good book two summers ago (can't remember the author)
> called "The Cousins' Wars" which analyzed the American Revolution and
> the American Civil War and highlighted the fundamental similarities of
> nature and culture (ethnic, religious, economic, etc) between the
> warring sides in each conflict; it is very interesting to note just how
> similar - to an historian, at least - the sides were in each conflict
> and how small the fundamental differences were which drove the conflicts.
Classic "culturalist" perspective. To some people, I
suppose, the difference between tyranny and freedom is
small compared to whether both parties wear the same
clothes, speak the same language, or eat the same foods.
Henry Spencer
Christopher M. Jones <marmite...@dualboot.net> wrote:
>> ...it is very interesting to note just how
>> and how small the fundamental differences were which drove the conflicts.
>
>Classic "culturalist" perspective. To some people, I
>suppose, the difference between tyranny and freedom is
>small compared to whether both parties wear the same
>clothes, speak the same language, or eat the same foods.
Just which side stood for tyranny and which stood for freedom can depend
quite a bit on who writes the history books. Many of the Confederates,
especially in the mid-latitude states like Virginia (which did not secede
until Lincoln made it clear that he planned to use force to reunite the
country), felt that they were fighting to free their states from the rule
of an increasingly tyrannical federal government.
Iordani
> Just which side stood for tyranny and which stood for freedom can depend
> quite a bit
Yaaaaawn... same story all over the galaxy...
Herb Schaltegger
"Christopher M. Jones" <marmite...@dualboot.net> wrote:
Umm, no. Read the book before passing judgment. Neither the American
Revolutionary War nor the American Civil War were much about "freedom"
versus "tyranny" in the modern senses of these words.
Scott Hedrick
"Etok" <Et...@spam-me-not-bogusnet.net> wrote in message
news:40f007b3$1...@news2.uncensored-news.com...
> It's expensive keeping General Dynamics and Boeing afloat.
Perhaps, but they pay the same tax burden- local property taxes, which are
getting hiked because the Feds and states keep promising more government
money, but rig the game so it gets squeezed from the locals.
Case in point, as of July 1, in Florida the portion of the Clerk of the
Court (the recording office) that is supposed to handle court business is
supposed to be self-funding. Not a problem for, say, Dade, Orange or
Hillsborough counties, which are mostly urbanized and have the population to
support it, but it would take an enormous chunk of the county budget where I
live to do so.
Part of the reason for this is that the state wants to pass the costs of big
trials to the counties. Eileen Wuornos killed someone where I live, and if
the current rules had been in effect then, the county would have to have
filed for bankruptcy, because the costs of the trial approached the county's
annual budget.
Thus, the *state* can say it's saving money, and the locals look bad for
raising taxes. On the other hand, there's also a millage cap, *and* a
constitutional amendment limiting the increase in the tax bill on
residences, so businesses are getting soaked. The taxes on a commercial
rental building my dad owns has gone up 168% in the last four years, in
spite of deterioration from a severe storm that hasn't been fixed. Other
local businesses- all owned by non-"good ol' boys" have been socked by as
much as 400% increases in the same time frame, while businesses owned by
natives have actually had their taxes reduced by a few percent (even after
one of them had done a major remodeling similar to another business that
caused that businesses' taxes to increase).
Kinda makes you go hmmmm...
Christopher M. Jones
> In article <KsXHc.274$Lq6....@news.uswest.net>,
> "Christopher M. Jones" <marmite...@dualboot.net> wrote:
>>Classic "culturalist" perspective. To some people, I
>>suppose, the difference between tyranny and freedom is
>>small compared to whether both parties wear the same
>>clothes, speak the same language, or eat the same foods.
>
> Umm, no. Read the book before passing judgment. Neither the American
> Revolutionary War nor the American Civil War were much about "freedom"
> versus "tyranny" in the modern senses of these words.
I reckon I ought to. But it occurs to me that in 1789
the Bill of Rights was the law of the land in the USA,
while at the same time Britain still had a monarch with
substantial governmental authority.
Christopher M. Jones
> In article <KsXHc.274$Lq6....@news.uswest.net>,
> Christopher M. Jones <marmite...@dualboot.net> wrote:
>>Classic "culturalist" perspective. To some people, I
>>suppose, the difference between tyranny and freedom is
>>small compared to whether both parties wear the same
>>clothes, speak the same language, or eat the same foods.
>
> Just which side stood for tyranny and which stood for freedom can depend
> quite a bit on who writes the history books. Many of the Confederates,
> especially in the mid-latitude states like Virginia (which did not secede
> until Lincoln made it clear that he planned to use force to reunite the
> country), felt that they were fighting to free their states from the rule
> of an increasingly tyrannical federal government.
Sure. History books are no sure judge of the truth of
history, this is well known.
As for the whole "state's rights" stuff, I don't buy into
it. The way I read it, and maybe I'm being a bit too
simplistic, the secessionist states wanted to protect their
state's rights mostly because they wanted to protect their
state's right to maintain the legality of slavery. Crap
like that hurt the doctrine of state's rights much more
than the heavy handed way the federal government dealt
with them, in my opinion.
Virginia's support for the rebellion might be somewhat
more forgiveable. Their heart, perhaps, was in the right
place, but they certainly picked the wrong side to support.
And not merely because their side lost.
Herb Schaltegger
But not nearly as much authority as his predecessors had only 100 years
prior, albeit more than Victoria would have a hundred years hence.
Nonetheless, whether you agree in whole or in part, or disagree
entirely, the book is an interesting read if for nothing else than to
see outlined all the social similarities between the warring sides.
Henry Spencer
>> of an increasingly tyrannical federal government.
>
>it. The way I read it, and maybe I'm being a bit too
>simplistic, the secessionist states wanted to protect their
>state's rights mostly because they wanted to protect their
I think you're being a *little* too simplistic. But only a little.
You have the right general idea, but it wasn't that direct.
There were a bunch of different issues under "states' rights", and no
shortage of Confederates (especially in the mid-latitude states) who
thought that the general principle was more important than the details.
There were senior Confederates who were anti-slavery, and others who were
at best lukewarm about it (just as there were pro-slavery voices, and
apologists for it, in the Union). Thinking of the war as abolitionists
vs. slaveowners is oversimplified to the point of simply being wrong.
*However*, the other "states' rights" issues could probably have been
resolved peacefully by negotiation and compromise, given patience and
goodwill on both sides. Slavery was the chicken bone in the throat of all
attempts at compromise, the problem that kept derailing negotiations and
ruining goodwill. It was what polarized the two sides to the point that
even the lesser issues couldn't be resolved, and eventually to the point
of "the center cannot hold". Without it, "states' rights" might have been
an electioneering slogan, but wouldn't have become a call to arms.
The war *was*, to a considerable extent, about independent-minded states
trying to escape an increasingly overbearing federal government. But
ultimately it was slavery that made the states so determinedly independent
even on relatively minor issues, and the federal government so intent on
asserting its authority even on those same issues.
Henry Spencer
>the Bill of Rights was the law of the land in the USA,
>while at the same time Britain still had a monarch with
>substantial governmental authority.
And in 1835, the President's annual message called on Congress to prohibit
the circulation through southern mails of "incendiary publications
intended to instigate the slaves to insurrection", Bill of Rights or no
Bill of Rights. (Congress didn't do so, but southern postmasters never
delivered such mail anyway.) Whereas in Britain, suffering under a monarch
and without a formal Bill of Rights, slavery was illegal.
Richard Schumacher
> [...As for the whole "state's rights" stuff, I don't buy into it. The
> way I read it, and maybe I'm being a bit too simplistic, the
> secessionist states wanted to protect their state's rights mostly
> because they wanted to protect their state's right to maintain the
> legality of slavery...]
>
>
>I think you're being a *little* too simplistic. But only a little.
>You have the right general idea, but it wasn't that direct.
>
>There were a bunch of different issues under "states' rights", and no
>shortage of Confederates (especially in the mid-latitude states) who
>thought that the general principle was more important than the details.
>There were senior Confederates who were anti-slavery, and others who were
>at best lukewarm about it (just as there were pro-slavery voices, and
>apologists for it, in the Union). Thinking of the war as abolitionists
>vs. slaveowners is oversimplified to the point of simply being wrong.
>
>
Today, of course, "state's rights" is precisely a euphemism for any damn
fool reactionary humbug for which no other defense can be found in an
educated and humane society.
Christopher M. Jones
> In article <9F4Ic.140$Ba5....@news.uswest.net>,
> Christopher M. Jones <marmite...@dualboot.net> wrote:
>
>>>...felt that they were fighting to free their states from the rule
>>>of an increasingly tyrannical federal government.
>>
>>...As for the whole "state's rights" stuff, I don't buy into
>>it. The way I read it, and maybe I'm being a bit too
>>simplistic, the secessionist states wanted to protect their
>>state's rights mostly because they wanted to protect their
>>state's right to maintain the legality of slavery...
>
> I think you're being a *little* too simplistic. But only a little.
> You have the right general idea, but it wasn't that direct.
Well of course, if it was that direct it would have
been more obvious, and less defensible.
> There were a bunch of different issues under "states' rights", and no
> shortage of Confederates (especially in the mid-latitude states) who
> thought that the general principle was more important than the details.
> There were senior Confederates who were anti-slavery, and others who were
> at best lukewarm about it (just as there were pro-slavery voices, and
> apologists for it, in the Union). Thinking of the war as abolitionists
> vs. slaveowners is oversimplified to the point of simply being wrong.
I'll agree with you there.
> *However*, the other "states' rights" issues could probably have been
> resolved peacefully by negotiation and compromise, given patience and
> goodwill on both sides. Slavery was the chicken bone in the throat of all
> attempts at compromise, the problem that kept derailing negotiations and
> ruining goodwill. It was what polarized the two sides to the point that
> even the lesser issues couldn't be resolved, and eventually to the point
> of "the center cannot hold". Without it, "states' rights" might have been
> an electioneering slogan, but wouldn't have become a call to arms.
Quite. The first states to secede did so after the
election of Lincoln not because he had a history of
States' Rights bustin', which he had not, but because
they feared he would be strongly anti-slavery, which
he had been.
> The war *was*, to a considerable extent, about independent-minded states
> trying to escape an increasingly overbearing federal government. But
> ultimately it was slavery that made the states so determinedly independent
> even on relatively minor issues, and the federal government so intent on
> asserting its authority even on those same issues.
Additionally, I think there was an element, tied in to
some extent with slavery, of aristocracy in many of
the southern states. They wanted states' rights
precisely because they wanted to preserve their little
fiefdoms from outside interference. There is little
doubt in my mind that had the reunification of the
states failed some of the southern states would have
degenerated to undemocratic rule.
Mike Collins
>> I reckon I ought to. But it occurs to me that in 1789
> the Bill of Rights was the law of the land in the USA,
> while at the same time Britain still had a monarch with
> substantial governmental authority.
rich and powerful "advisors" who used the fact that the king's family had
ruled the country before to give them a veneer of legality.
In the 21st century the US wouldn't choose a president for the same reasons
would they?
Oh bugger
--
Mike Collins
UK
Mike&heather-at-oakwellmount-dot-freeserve-dot-co-dot-uk
Eric Chomko
: "Herb Schaltegger" <herb.sch...@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
Huh, and I read that their collective opinion would be, " with all this,
what are they complaining about?"
Eric
Geoffrey A. Landis
Christopher M. Jones <marmite...@dualboot.net> wrote:
>>Classic "culturalist" perspective. To some people, I
>>suppose, the difference between tyranny and freedom is
>>small compared to whether both parties wear the same
>>clothes, speak the same language, or eat the same foods.
Henry Spencer replied:
> Just which side stood for tyranny and which stood for freedom can
> depend quite a bit on who writes the history books.
No, it doesn't.
Slavery stands for tyranny
Freedom stands for freedom.
I'm not sure how that is difficult to understand. I'm sure that if the
slave states wrote the history books that they would indeed define
"slavery" as meaning freedom, but nevertheless, it doesn't/
> Many of the
> Confederates, especially in the mid-latitude states like Virginia (
> which did not secede until Lincoln made it clear that he planned to
> use force to reunite the country), felt that they were fighting to
> free their states from the rule of an increasingly tyrannical federal
> government.
And incidentally preserve their rights to keep slaves.
Note that the south wasn't at all in favor of state's rights before the
Civil war, when the Fugitive Slave Act was in place-- their approach was
all in favor of federal power when federal power meant that they could
chase fugitive slaves into free states, and return them to slavery.
Somehow, the "state's rights" that really mattered to them was the right
to keep other humans in bondage.
-Geoff
John Schilling
>Henry Spencer wrote:
So in your world view, gay marriage constitutes a damn fool reactionary
humbug for which no other defense can be found in an educated and humane
society?
John Schilling
>Christopher M. Jones <marmite...@dualboot.net> wrote:
>>>Classic "culturalist" perspective. To some people, I
>>>suppose, the difference between tyranny and freedom is
>>>small compared to whether both parties wear the same
>>>clothes, speak the same language, or eat the same foods.
>Henry Spencer replied:
>> Just which side stood for tyranny and which stood for freedom can
>> depend quite a bit on who writes the history books.
>No, it doesn't.
>Slavery stands for tyranny
>Freedom stands for freedom.
>I'm not sure how that is difficult to understand. I'm sure that if the
>slave states wrote the history books that they would indeed define
>"slavery" as meaning freedom, but nevertheless, it doesn't/
And if the Civil War had involved one side fighting for Slavery and one
side fighting for Freedom, it would be easy to figure out who the tyrants
were. But it didn't.
The South was indeed mostly fighting to preserve Slavery, more or less, for
some of its population. That's undeniable, and it's not good.
If you claim that the North went to war as part of a great moral crusade to
abolish slavery, well, the only words I can find to express my disdain for
such amazing cluelessness are unsuited for this forum.
There is no requirement for symmetry in warfare; that side A fights for
cause X does *not* mean that side !A is thus fighting for cause !X.
The CSA mostly, but not exclusively, fought to preserve slavery. The USA
fought for *something else*. Which side stood for tyranny, if we have to
pick just one, depends on what fraction of the Union's "something else"
involved other forms of tyranny.
I tend to think that, on the balance, the moral judgement favors the Union.
But it's not nearly the simplistic battle of Good vs. Evil that you make
it out to be, and the real or hypothetical historians who argue the opposite
case are not engaging in Orwellian doublespeak revisionism but legitimate
debate.
And that's true of a lot of wars that are portrayed as Great Crusades of
Good vs. Evil, right down to the point where the legitimate historical
and political debate is skewed by the fact that some people genuinely
like and others reflexively appease military victors and so the position
of the losers is discredited beyond what its (lack of) merit would call
for.
Scott Hedrick
"John Schilling" <schi...@spock.usc.edu> wrote in message
news:cd4rke$827$1...@spock.usc.edu...
> So in your world view, gay marriage constitutes a damn fool reactionary
> humbug for which no other defense can be found in an educated and humane
> society?
Don't seem to recall that being an issue with the War to End Southern
Appartheid. Can you provide a cite?
John Schilling
The claim, which you seem to have very carefully edited out, was that
the doctrine of State's Rights was *universally*, not merely in its
specific incarnation as justification for the CSA, limited to "damn
fool reactionary humbugs for which no other defense can be found in
an educated society".
That claim is false, and has been disproven by counterexample.
Sorry if the chosen disproof doesn't include a defense of the
Confederacy for you to attack, but no such claim was necessary
or appropriate for the purpose.
Martin Frey
>"Anything worth doing, is worth doing for money" -13th Rule of Acquisition
In a lot of years on usenet, this has got to be the most chilling and
dispiriting signature I have ever seen.
--
Martin Frey
http://www.hadastro.org.uk
N 51 02 E 0 47
Scott Hedrick
"Mike Collins" <mike&hea...@acornwellmount.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message news:ccs2ml$r2v$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Of course at that time the king was mostly used to legitimise the rule of
> rich and powerful "advisors" who used the fact that the king's family had
> ruled the country before to give them a veneer of legality.
> In the 21st century the US wouldn't choose a president for the same
reasons
> would they?
As Carter and Clinton clearly show, no.
Scott Hedrick
> The claim, which you seem to have very carefully edited out
Not at all. I *very carefully* included your sudden change of subject to gay
marriages.
I asked for a cite where this was an issue in the War to End Southern
Appartheid. Please provide one. Otherwise, it's clear that you brought up an
irrelevant red herring.
Geoffrey A. Landis
> >> Just which side stood for tyranny and which stood for freedom can
> >> depend quite a bit on who writes the history books.
Geoffrey A. Landis <geoffrey_...@nasa.gov> retorted
> >No, it doesn't.
> >Slavery stands for tyranny
> >Freedom stands for freedom.
>
> >I'm not sure how that is difficult to understand. I'm sure that if the
> >slave states wrote the history books that they would indeed define
> >"slavery" as meaning freedom, but nevertheless, it doesn't/
schi...@spock.usc.edu (John Schilling) disagreed:.
> And if the Civil War had involved one side fighting for Slavery and one
> side fighting for Freedom, it would be easy to figure out who the tyrants
> were. But it didn't.
>
> The South was indeed mostly fighting to preserve Slavery, more or less, for
> some of its population. That's undeniable, and it's not good.
>
> If you claim that the North went to war as part of a great moral crusade to
> abolish slavery, well, the only words I can find to express my disdain for
> such amazing cluelessness are unsuited for this forum.
My ancestors went to war singing
"As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free, His Truth
goes marching on."
I don't know what lyrics your ancestors might have been singing.
If you would like to talk about amazing cluelessness, I have a great
deal of disdain for the cluelessness of people who seem to believe
that the southern states separated as an expression of state's rights,
and somehow this indicated they were on the side of freedom. Any
words I could find to express my disdain for this opinion are unsuited
for this forum. The freedom they were interested in was the freedom
to own slaves.
The Confederate states were built on an essential core values of evil.
Every now and then, the good guys win, and in these cases, I cheer
them on.
--
Geoffrey A. Landis
http://www.sff.net/people/geoffrey.landis
Christopher M. Jones
> In article <Tt4Ic.292$Lq6.1...@news.uswest.net>,
> Christopher M. Jones <marmite...@dualboot.net> wrote:
>
>> ...But it occurs to me that in 1789
>> the Bill of Rights was the law of the land in the USA,
>> while at the same time Britain still had a monarch with
>> substantial governmental authority.
>
> And in 1835, the President's annual message called on Congress to
> prohibit
> the circulation through southern mails of "incendiary publications
> intended to instigate the slaves to insurrection", Bill of Rights or no
> Bill of Rights. (Congress didn't do so, but southern postmasters never
> delivered such mail anyway.) Whereas in Britain, suffering under a
> monarch
> and without a formal Bill of Rights, slavery was illegal.
The slavery point with regard to the US vs. Europe in
the 19th century is an interesting one. Especially in
how often it is brought up to compare the morality of
the US vs. Europe during that time period. Personally
I think it is a disingenuous, or at best mistaken,
point of comparison since there isn't enough common
ground for a direct apples to apples comparison.
I won't, of course, try to defend the indefensible
institution of slavery. But I will point out the
simple fact of the existence of European empires
during this "slavery was outlawed in Britain" (and
France) time period. The laws and principles of
such empires being, typically, so morally
reprehensible with regard to the subject peoples that
the distinction of actual ownership of a human being
is one which hardly makes a difference. Indeed, even
after the US had outlawed slavery itself Britain was
still running a vast system of sharecrop farms in
India through taxation and local landlords (Zamindars)
which made a decent run at slavery in terms of
loathsomeness. And that hardly even touches on the
Indian *or* the British class and caste systems in
society, business, and in law. Nor to mention the
behavior of the Red Coats throughout the world at
that time.
John Schilling
>Henry Spencer said
>> >> Just which side stood for tyranny and which stood for freedom can
>> >> depend quite a bit on who writes the history books.
>Geoffrey A. Landis <geoffrey_...@nasa.gov> retorted
>> >No, it doesn't.
>> >Slavery stands for tyranny
>> >Freedom stands for freedom.
>> >I'm not sure how that is difficult to understand. I'm sure that if the
>> >slave states wrote the history books that they would indeed define
>> >"slavery" as meaning freedom, but nevertheless, it doesn't/
>schi...@spock.usc.edu (John Schilling) disagreed:.
>> And if the Civil War had involved one side fighting for Slavery and one
>> side fighting for Freedom, it would be easy to figure out who the tyrants
>> were. But it didn't.
>> The South was indeed mostly fighting to preserve Slavery, more or less, for
>> some of its population. That's undeniable, and it's not good.
>>
>> If you claim that the North went to war as part of a great moral crusade to
>> abolish slavery, well, the only words I can find to express my disdain for
>> such amazing cluelessness are unsuited for this forum.
>My ancestors went to war singing
>"As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free, His Truth
>goes marching on."
Not as they went marching into Virginia in 1861, they didn't. That song
hadn't been written yet.
And if they were a bit further west, in Missouri, they would have been
fighting under General John C. Fremont. Who did indeed free all the
slaves in Missouri, right at the start. And who was countermanded by
Abraham Linconl. The "Great Emancipator", with one stroke of his
executive pen, sent eighty five thousand free Negros back *into*
chattel slavery, in the name of political expediency.
*Later*, when the Union was having trouble drumming up support for
their war, they came up with the Emancipation Proclamation and the
Battle Hymn of the Republic and all that.
>I don't know what lyrics your ancestors might have been singing.
In that era, probably "Heil Dir im Siegerkranz. Herrscher das
Vaterlands. Heil Kaisir, dir". The Schillings of the 1860s were
big on German Unification.
Sorry about that; it seemed a good idea at the time.
>If you would like to talk about amazing cluelessness, I have a great
>deal of disdain for the cluelessness of people who seem to believe
>that the southern states separated as an expression of state's rights,
>and somehow this indicated they were on the side of freedom. Any
>words I could find to express my disdain for this opinion are unsuited
>for this forum. The freedom they were interested in was the freedom
>to own slaves.
Which would probably be why I said, "The South was indeed mostly fighting
to preserve Slavery". Try to keep up.
Though if we're going to use marching songs as evidence, maybe I *will*
take up the "slavery had nothing to do with it" argument. After all,
the lyrics to "Dixie" are big on regional pride and mention slavery not
at all. Likewise the plain and simple statements of so many Confederate
leaders and soldiers.
But marching songs *are* propaganda, and my argument was *not* that the
Confederates were the Good Guys.
>The Confederate states were built on an essential core values of evil.
>Every now and then, the good guys win, and in these cases, I cheer
>them on.
My argument was that the Union was the Other Set of Bad Guys. That war,
which your ancestors may have enthusiastically participated in while mine
had nothing to do with, came about because *both* sides were itching for
a fight, and *neither* of them gave a damn, except insofar as they could
get some good propaganda out of it, for the rights or well-being of the
Negro population of the southern states.
Some incidental good came out of the Union victory, at far too great a
cost. Some incidental good would have come from a Confederate victory,
also at far too great a cost, and some good would have come from the
secession being accomplished and accepted without bloodshed. Which
of these possible outcomes of the war between the Bad Guys and the
Other Bad Guys would have involved the most incidental good, the least
damage to the cause of freedom, is debatable. I've said I cast my vote
for Union victory in battle, but I'm not happy about it.
Geoffrey A. Landis
[schi...@spock.usc.edu (John Schilling) wrote:]
> >> The South was indeed mostly fighting to preserve Slavery, more or less, for
> >> some of its population. That's undeniable, and it's not good.
Slavery is the opposite of freedom, and hence I would say that my
original point is QED. I doubt that you will disagree that *some* of
the Northerners were fighting to abolish slavery, so our main point of
disagreement seems to be what fraction were fighting for what reason.
> But marching songs *are* propaganda, and my argument was *not* that the
> Confederates were the Good Guys.
Thus we agree.
>...
> Some incidental good came out of the Union victory,
Here I agree...
> at far too great a cost.
Depends on the price you put on freedom. A great evil was wiped away
from the nation.
>Some incidental good would have come from a Confederate victory,
Here we disagree.
> also at far too great a cost, and some good would have come from the
> secession being accomplished and accepted without bloodshed.
Here we again disagree. Confederate secession results in continued
slavery; it's difficult to come up with what "some good" might cancel
out "enormous evil."
> Which
> of these possible outcomes of the war between the Bad Guys and the
> Other Bad Guys would have involved the most incidental good, the least
> damage to the cause of freedom, is debatable.
No, in terms of "damage to the cause of freedom," it is quite clear.
Slavery is the opposite of freedom. The cause of freedom is served by
ending slavery. This is so obvious a point that I am baffled why it
could possibly be debatable (and the motives of the northern soldiers
aren't particularly relevant either way.).
> I've said I cast my vote
> for Union victory in battle, but I'm not happy about it.
Well, good. Go ahead and be happy. Just stop listening to the
southern apologists, who like to rewrite history to ignore the
inconvenient fact of slavery.
Derek Lyons
>>Some incidental good came out of the Union victory, at far too great a cost.
>
>Depends on the price you put on freedom. A great evil was wiped away
>from the nation.
Only as a political accident, not as a purpose of the war. But you
snipped that part away.
>> I've said I cast my vote
>> for Union victory in battle, but I'm not happy about it.
>
>Well, good. Go ahead and be happy. Just stop listening to the
>southern apologists, who like to rewrite history to ignore the
>inconvenient fact of slavery.
And we should listen to Union apologists who also like to rewrite
history to ignore the inconvenient fact of slavery?
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
Geoffrey A. Landis
> geoffre...@sff.net (Geoffrey A. Landis) wrote:
> >>Some incidental good came out of the Union victory, at far too great a cost.
> >
> >Depends on the price you put on freedom. A great evil was wiped away
> >from the nation.
>
> Only as a political accident, not as a purpose of the war. But you
> snipped that part away.
We seem to be violently agreeing with each other.
I stated, a great evil was wiped away. You agree.
I don't actually care what the motives were. Slavery was eliminated.
This is a victory in the cause of freedom.
This is not really debatable-- slavery is the opposite of freedom--
and, actually, you don't seem to be debating it.
So we're in agreement. You seem to be arguing about the motives. I
would say that the motives of the various people of the north were
many and varied, but frankly, my dear, I don't give a d**n about the
motives.
> >> I've said I cast my vote
> >> for Union victory in battle, but I'm not happy about it.
> >
> >Well, good. Go ahead and be happy. Just stop listening to the
> >southern apologists, who like to rewrite history to ignore the
> >inconvenient fact of slavery.
>
> And we should listen to Union apologists who also like to rewrite
> history to ignore the inconvenient fact of slavery?
Quick sumary of the point I have been making:
Slavery is bad. It's gone now. If you like freedom, this is good.
Which part of this is "rewriting history?"
OM <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research_facility.org>
wrote:
> 1) I strongly urge you to read Turtledove's _Guns of the South_. It's
> inarguably the most balanced look at the War Betwixt The States that's
> ever been written, and while it *is* a work of science fiction it
> covers the main reasons why the War was fought and what slavery
> actually meant to all parties involved.
I am very fond of Harry Turtledove, but I would like to remind you
that this is a WORK OF FICTION. I like science fiction, but I work
very hard at trying to avoid confusing fiction with fact. In a work
of fiction, peoples motivations are whatever motives best to make the
plot work.
>[more boring and tendentious discussion of motives]
I don't actually care. Slavery is gone. This is good.
Which part of this don't you like?
> If I were a liberal perverted democrat, I'd probably claim the WMD's
> were Bush's version of Lincoln's EP...
I'm not sure what your point is here, but if it's of any significance,
I'm neither a liberal nor a Democrat (unless your intent in spelling
"democrat" with a small d is intended to mean "an advocate of
democracy," in which case I'll agree.)
Derek Lyons
>Quick sumary of the point I have been making:
>Slavery is bad. It's gone now. If you like freedom, this is good.
>
>Which part of this is "rewriting history?"
The part where you claim that slavery, and the ending thereof, was the
cause of the War. The part where you ignore the fact that the North
did not act against slavery until it was politically expedient.
No, we are not in violent agreement. I face the truth squarely, you
quail before admitting that slavery was ended for political reasons
and not as a moral crusade.
Terrell Miller
news:1bfb1890.04080...@posting.google.com...
> I don't actually care what the motives were.
you should, for this reason: if Gettysburg had turned out differently and
the Confederacy had kept on winning the war (and please remember that in
July 1863 the Union military effort was in shambles), Lincoln would have
done *anything* to try to preserve the Union. Up to and including the
repatriation of escaped slaves living in the North, if that's what it took.
He was a politician. He was by definition an utter pragmatist. He was just
driving a wedge into his enemy's flank, that's all he was doing. But his
side won the war, so forever after he's the Great Emancipator.
Sure.
<snip>
> I'm not sure what your point is here, but if it's of any significance,
> I'm neither a liberal nor a Democrat (unless your intent in spelling
> "democrat" with a small d is intended to mean "an advocate of
> democracy," in which case I'll agree.)
one of my economics professors in college was a big Cato Institute type,
lots of sweeeping theories and stuff. One day he was asked whether he was a
Democrat or a Republican. He answered "I'm an economist" <g>
--
Terrell Miller
mill...@bellsouth.net
proudly keeping alt.music.yes all-to-fuck since 1996
Christopher M. Jones
> "Geoffrey A. Landis" <geoffre...@sff.net> wrote in message
> news:1bfb1890.04080...@posting.google.com...
>
>>I don't actually care what the motives were.
>
> you should, for this reason: if Gettysburg had turned out differently and
> the Confederacy had kept on winning the war (and please remember that in
> July 1863 the Union military effort was in shambles), Lincoln would have
> done *anything* to try to preserve the Union. Up to and including the
> repatriation of escaped slaves living in the North, if that's what it took.
>
> He was a politician. He was by definition an utter pragmatist. He was just
> driving a wedge into his enemy's flank, that's all he was doing. But his
> side won the war, so forever after he's the Great Emancipator.
This is an accurate but grossly misleading picture
of Lincoln. Undoubtedly he was anti-slavery.
Undoubtedly he would end slavery if he could do so.
That he did or did not at any particular time ties in
with his feelings on whether it was actually feasible,
politically, to end slavery then. Eventually it
turned out to be feasible, and he did effectively
ring the death knell of slavery in the US then with
the emancipation proclamation. That the proclamation
didn't outlaw slavery completely is a comparatively
minor point in a much larger issue. Even well before
the 1860s slavery in America was on wobbly political
legs, only barely able to keep going due to
convoluted political compromises that maintained a
balance of power. The emancipation proclamation
broke that balance of power utterly and completely,
with or without the 13th amendment that action
brought about the end of slavery in America. The
few pockets left out of the emancipation
proclamation would not have been politically
powerful enough to maintain the legality of slavery
for much longer.
Lest we forget it was the fear that Lincoln would
spell the end of slavery (through ending the
compromises, destroying the balance of power, etc.)
that caused the states to secede after his election
in the first place. His reputation as the Great
Emancipator is, I believe, well earned.
Terrell Miller
news:3r2dnSy6Xt-...@comcast.com...
> That the proclamation
> didn't outlaw slavery completely is a comparatively
> minor point in a much larger issue.
ROTFLMAO
Carey Sublette
"Christopher M. Jones" <marmite...@dualboot.net> wrote in message
news:3r2dnSy6Xt-...@comcast.com...
I agree with nearly everything in your post - except the contention that:
"Even well before the 1860s slavery in America was on wobbly political
legs, only barely able to keep going due to convoluted political
compromises that maintained a balance of power."
This vastly understates the true obduracy of the issue of slavery in the
U.S.
The reason is the found in the last three words "balance of power".
The political struggle through the first half of the 19th century between
the slave and free states was the effort by the slave states to retain full
equality of power for the slave states, an effort that was actually
successful all the way down to their succession from the Union.
This focus on maintaining the power of the slave states was informed by
their correct understanding that if this bloc ever lost its hold on equal
power within the Union, it would never regain it, and that this might
*eventually* threaten the maintenance of the slave system.
But slavery was in no way being actually threatened by the events of the
nineteenth century leading up the the Civil War. A key factor in the
intensity of the political struggle was that as an economic and social
force, slavery was rapidly expanding throughout this period. The rise of
industrialization had created an enormous market for the chief product of
the slave system - cotton - and made slave holders rich. The acreage devoted
to slave plantations had exploded and slavery had been transformed from
being a marginal component of the southern economy, to its backbone. The
price of slaves was at an all time high at the eve of the Civil War due the
intense demand for them by the still expanding slave plantation system. The
institution was - tragically - extremely vital. In no sense, political or
otherwise, was it "barely able to keep going".
To actually abolish slavery in the slave states - without the Civil War -
would have required amending the U.S. constitution, which requires a
two-thirds majority of the states. The slave states could have blocked any
effort to do so, with their own votes alone (i.e. without being forced to
strike political deals to block it), for a long, long time. I once looked at
when a two-thirds majority to abolish slavery would have first become
possible, assuming all states were admitted on the same schedule as did
occur historically, and that all states admitted after 1860 had been free
states. IIRC, it was not until the admission of the 48th state - Arizona -
on 12 February 1912. It gives one pause for thought to consider the
possibility of slavery lasting until the eve of World War I.
By succeeding from the Union the South did the United States, and the world,
a great favor by enabling the rapid demolition of its own "peculiar
institution".
Carey Sublette