|
Re: War....
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by geoschmo:
I do.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, Geo, I have to (generally) agree with Exculcator on this one. There were several struggles involved in the Civil War, only one of which was slavery vs. liberation of Blacks. Exculcator has another: the age-old problem of Union vs. Liberty, as expressed in a set of quotes from a gathering involving several prominent political figures of the late 1820's: "The Federal Union, it must be preserved." -- Andrew Jackson "The Union, next to our Liberty, the most dear." -- John C. Calhoun "Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable." -- Daniel Webster Jackson and Calhoun were both from the South (and Webster from Vermont or something like that), but while Webster's idea may be felt by a majority of us now, Jackson and Calhoun's ideologies previaled, Jackson's taking hold more in the North, Calhoun's in the South. But that's not all of it. There was also the matter of commerce. Let's face it, the North may have condemned slavery, but they sure didn't mind the money that flowed their way. They had all the manufacturing, and therefore the money from raw goods--cotton, tobacco, and other plantation materials--that flowed into the South (partially from the North, partially from Europe) eventually made it to the North, where finished goods were made. The South kept Blacks as slaves; the North kept the South, commercially, as slaves. The South knew that without slaves to do the work, they would be destitute, but the North could get their raw materials elsewhere. When Lincoln, who did run with an anti-slavery plank in his platform, was elected, the South was horrified and knew that if they remained in the Union they would certainly become completely dependent on the North. So they seceded. Which could have been an amicable situation, actually: the South would have abolished slavery, at a guess, near 1890-1900, finding the Last strains of the Industrial Revolution more useful for production of raw materials. But, they weren't initially friendly to the North, and the North's partial dependence on the South for raw materials made the North angry when they simply couldn't get them. So the North blockaded Charleston and other major ports to stop trade between the new Confederacy and Britain/Europe, in an attempt to force them to trade with the Union. Frankly, even now that'd be considered an act of war. Follow Harper's Ferry, Fort Sumter, Civil War. OK. I paid too much attention in history class... and probably still have stuff wrong. Feel free to discuss. Eric |
Re: War....
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by geoschmo:
We stopped being a federation of States when the constitution was signed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have to disagree with that one, strongly. We stopped being a federation of States in a slow, leak process, as the Federal government slowly took over more and more powers from the States and the people--powers that are supposedly reserved to the States and the People in the 9th and 10th Amendments to said Constitution. These are the two Amendments that most courts seem to ignore. While I'll agree the leak process began at the signing of the Constitution, it's taken quite a while, and there have been major bursts of activity driving us toward a single Union: the Depression and the New Deal which was implemented for the express purpose of getting us out of said Depression (and subsequently didn't work); before that certain policies instituted under Wilson, and before that Reconstruction. By the time we got to the Lyndon Johnson administration, the leak process was mostly finished and even Republicans pretty much accepted that there were no longer such things as "States" except in a few areas such as education. The LBJ administration eliminated "States" as far as education goes. And so forth. (OK, why is rambling about silly political ideologies of the past soothing to me? http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif) Eric |
Re: War....
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LazarusLong42:
...But that's not all of it. There was also the matter of commerce. Let's face it, the North may have condemned slavery, but they sure didn't mind the money that flowed their way. They had all the manufacturing, and therefore the money from raw goods--cotton, tobacco, and other plantation materials--that flowed into the South (partially from the North, partially from Europe) eventually made it to the North, where finished goods were made.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>All very true. For the first hundred years of our country there was a dirty little aggrement where everybody got paid and everybody stayed happy. I am not by any means saying the North was innocent. But by the 1860's attitudes in the North had shifted away from this and towards abbolishing slavery. This fact is what caused the rift between the two. All the pretty words about liberty and unity were just a way for "educated" men of the time to discuss the issue of the day without having to face the glaring truth. The argument boiled down to it's core was simply, "Do I have the right to own another human being as property." The majority in South felt YES strongly enough to quit the country. The majority of the North felt strongly NO storngly enough to go to war to stop them. Of course there are many other reasons why one individual or group or another picked one side or the other. Not everybody in the North cared a whit about the slaves. And not everybody in the South depended on slavery. Many would have been perfectly happy to allow it to be abolished at the time. And I don't doubt you are correct it would have been within a few more decades at any rate. But my point is if you are looking for a single, defining cause for the American Civil War, it has to be the abolishion of slavery. It is the only one of the numerous issues of the day that if removed from the table, could have prevented the conflict from ever starting. It is the point about which all the other disagreements revolved. Geoschmo |
Re: War....
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LazarusLong42:
I have to disagree with that one, strongly. We stopped being a federation of States in a slow, leak process, as the Federal government slowly took over more and more powers from the States and the people--powers that are supposedly reserved to the States and the People in the 9th and 10th Amendments to said Constitution.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Of course a lot of this is a purely acedemic argument about semantics and definitions. But the "Articles of Confederation" Gave almost no power to the congress. Really the only thing the congress could do was mediate desputes between the various states, and make treaties and wars with other nations. "Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled. Article III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever." Once we gave up on that and signed the Constitution we went from being a close federation of independant, sovereign, nation states, and became a single nation, or union. To be sure over time there has been a "leak" of the balance of power from the decentralized states towards a more massive federal burocracy. And that's not alway's been a good thing by any stretch. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>(OK, why is rambling about silly political ideologies of the past soothing to me? )<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I don't know. But I feel it too. This has been very theraputic. Almost like making my mind "think" for a while has allowed my emotions to take a break. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif Geoschmo |
Re: War....
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by geoschmo:
But the "Articles of Confederation" Gave almost no power to the congress. Really the only thing the congress could do was mediate desputes between the various states, and make treaties and wars with other nations. Once we gave up on that and signed the Constitution we went from being a close federation of independant, sovereign, nation states, and became a single nation, or union.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh, yes, absolutely... the AoC created about as loose a federation as one could create. I hadn't really thought of the states as being "nation-states" under the AoC, but I suppose that's probably a better definition. The AoC was barely more binding than, say, the NATO charter, or the EU charter. Though certainly much more than the UN charter, which is as binding as Kleenex. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif Eric |
Re: War....
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LazarusLong42:
Oh, yes, absolutely... the AoC created about as loose a federation as one could create. I hadn't really thought of the states as being "nation-states" under the AoC, but I suppose that's probably a better definition. The AoC was barely more binding than, say, the NATO charter, or the EU charter. Though certainly much more than the UN charter, which is as binding as Kleenex. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif Eric<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, I would say it is very close to the NATO charter. Although if a NATO member wants to go to war with another country we won't really stop them, unless it's another NATO member. But they probably would get kicked out eventually if they were the aggressor. I wonder how different things would be today if we had kept the AoC? I think the EU is really just an economic agreement isn't it. Kind of a T&R treaty in SEIV terms? I don't really know though. I didn't think it had any military ramifications at all. Geoschmo |
Re: War....
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
The sound you hear is the rest of the forum being put to sleep by Laz and Geo's facinating discussion about 18th and 19th century politics. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif |
Re: War....
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by geoschmo:
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ The sound you hear is the rest of the forum being put to sleep by Laz and Geo's facinating discussion about 18th and 19th century politics. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't know, I think it is more interesting than the incessant droning of the talking heads on TV and radio. While this is truly the cataclysmic news story, there really isn't much new to say right at the moment, but that doesn't stop the news from saying the same thing over and o v e r aga...zzzzz Uh, sorry. Where was I? Oh yeah, maybe I'm just insensitive, but it seems like we should at least start to get back to some sense of normalcy. They can always interrupt with real news. Of course, there is little that is worthwhile on TV normally anyway, so maybe this is an improvement. Oh well, time to go back to sle... I mean work. |
Re: War....
Oh man are you right about that.
The only thing worse than hearing the same thing over and over is hearing all these really specific, detailed reports, that turn out to be absolute bunk. That has been happening TOO much the past 48 hours. I guess the new press rule is if you don't have anything new to say, make something up. Geoschmo |
Re: War....
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by geoschmo:
I think the EU is really just an economic agreement isn't it. Kind of a T&R treaty in SEIV terms? I don't really know though. I didn't think it had any military ramifications at all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Mainly economic, but not just that. There are also some political obligations and some attempts to coordinate foreign and internal (social) policies. There's no military involvement - although most of the member states are also members of the NATO. By the way, there's something I never understood about the American Civil War - had (has?) a member state the right to quit the Union? IOW, had the remaining member states the right to "restore order" through use of force? |
Re: War....
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lisif:
Mainly economic, but not just that. There are also some political obligations and some attempts to coordinate foreign and internal (social) policies. There's no military involvement - although most of the member states are also members of the NATO. By the way, there's something I never understood about the American Civil War - had (has?) a member state the right to quit the Union? IOW, had the remaining member states the right to "restore order" through use of force?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's the central issue of the Civil War, actually. It doesn't explicitly say in the Constitution that a state may withdraw from the union after joining, but it doesn't say that a state may NOT either. Many say that the 10th Amendment, which reserves powers not explicitly given to the Federal govt. for the people or the states, gives a state the implicit right to cecede from the union. This would make the war by the North illegal, but since the North won it got to write the history (and law) books. |
Re: War....
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lisif:
Mainly economic, but not just that. There are also some political obligations and some attempts to coordinate foreign and internal (social) policies. There's no military involvement - although most of the member states are also members of the NATO.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You're forgetting that is changing now. Originally it was just an economic agreement but it is now gradually gaining more powers from the member countries. Also an European Defense/Task force is in the process of being formed using soldiers from the EU countries (mainly from Britain and France I think) and there has been talk of the EU becoming a United States of Europe. Personally I wouldn't be surprised if by the end of the 21st century it came into being! Ciao Shonae |
Re: War....
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
That's the central issue of the Civil War, actually. It doesn't explicitly say in the Constitution that a state may withdraw from the union after joining, but it doesn't say that a state may NOT either. Many say that the 10th Amendment, which reserves powers not explicitly given to the Federal govt. for the people or the states, gives a state the implicit right to secede from the union. This would make the war by the North illegal, but since the North won it got to write the history (and law) books.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's one way to look at it. I think a more valid argument is that by seceding from the Union, the southern states were not exercising their "implicit" rights maintained by the 10th amendment, but actually abrogating the "explicit" rights given to the federal government in all the other articles and amendments that they agreed to when the Constitution was ratified. Constitutionally the only way the South could secede and form there own confederation was by a recommendation of amendment abolishing the current Constitution would have to be made by 3/4ths of the state legislatures of the various states, which would then have to be ratified by 4/5 fifths of the state legislatures. (Article V) They would then be free to decide to join a new confederation, stay in the greater union after ratifying a new constitution, or form their own sovereign, independent nation. Of course they did not have the required number of states to do this, so the result was an illegal action and as such the Federal government had the right to take the action it did. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LazaruLong42: So the North blockaded Charleston and other major ports to stop trade between the new Confederacy and Britain/Europe, in an attempt to force them to trade with the Union. Frankly, even now that'd be considered an act of war. Follow Harper's Ferry, Fort Sumter, Civil War.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Constitionally the Confederate States of America was a non-entity, and the people in and defending it were actually still American citizens bound by the laws set forth in the U.S. Constitution. In that sense it was not actually a war at all but a police action. Of course that Last point is semantics. The point is moot now. Geoschmo [This message has been edited by geoschmo (edited 15 September 2001).] [This message has been edited by geoschmo (edited 15 September 2001).] |
Re: War....
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Puke:
isnt it the same tune as "god save the queen?"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The Americanized tune is "My Country tis of Thee" So, they really were playing the National Anthem...I knew I wasn't nuts http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif |
Re: War....
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>isnt it the same tune as "god save the queen?"The Americanized tune is "My Country tis of Thee" So, they really were playing the National Anthem<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>An amusing bit of trivia: The tune to "The Star Spangled Banner" was taken from a British drinking song called "The Halls of Anacreon".
Which makes a lot of sense, actually; you almost have to be drunk to try to hit that high note towards the end. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif ------------------ Cap'n Q The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all of its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should go far. -- HP Lovecraft, "The Call of Cthulhu" [This message has been edited by capnq (edited 15 September 2001).] |
Re: War....
I thought some of you may find this article on Afghanistan interesting - especially us Americans.
September 13, 2001 THE AFGHANS Taliban Plead for Mercy to the Miserable in a Land of Nothing By BARRY BEARAK ABUL, Afghanistan, Sept. 12 — If there are Americans clamoring to bomb Afghanistan back to the Stone Age, they ought to know that this nation does not have so far to go. This is a post-apocalyptic place of felled cities, parched land and downtrodden people. The fragility of this country was part of the message the Taliban government conveyed in a plea for restraint issued late tonight. It said in part, "We appeal to the United States not to put Afghanistan into more misery because our people have suffered so much." Whatever Afghanistan's current cataclysm, its next one seems to require little time to overtake it. Wars fought by sundry protagonists have gone on now for 22 consecutive years, a remorseless drought for 4. Since 1996, most of the nation has been ruled by Taliban mullahs whose vision of the world's purest Islamic state has at least as much to do with controlling social behavior as vouchsafing social welfare. The accused terrorist Osama bin Laden has found a home here, angering much of the world. In 1998, America fired a volley of more than 70 cruise missiles at guerrilla training camps reportedly operated by the Saudi multimillionaire. Now, there seems to be the prospect of another barrage, with Afghan hospitality to the same man as the cause. As fear of an American attack mounted, the Taliban's senior spokesman in Kandahar, Abdul Hai Mutmain, called the few foreign reporters here to issue the statement, which in part defended Mr. bin Laden: "These days, Osama bin Laden's name has become very popular and to an extent it has become a symbol. These days, even to the common people, Osama bin Laden's name is associated with all controversial acts. Osama bin Laden does not have such capabilities. We still hope sanity prevails in the United States. We are confident that if a fair investigation is carried out by American authorities, the Taliban will not be found guilty of involvement in such cowardly acts." The statement also said, "Killing our leaders will not help our people any. There is no factory in Afghanistan that is worth the price of a single missile fired at us. It will simply increase the mistrust between the people in the region and the United States." Whatever else there is to say about this entreaty, one part that is indisputably true is that this land-locked, ruggedly beautiful nation is in absolute misery. Here in Kabul, the capital, roaming clusters of widows beg in the streets, their palms seemingly frozen in a supplicant pose. Withered men pull overloaded carts, their labor less costly than the price of a donkey. Children play in vast ruins, their limbs sometimes wrenched away by remnant land mines. The national life expectancy, according to the central statistics office, has fallen to 42 for males and 40 for females. The prolonged drought has sent nearly a million Afghans — about 5 percent of the population — on a desperate flight from hunger. Some have gone to other Afghan cities, others across the border. More than one million are "at risk of starvation," according to the United Nations. Famine is the catastrophe Afghans are used to hearing about. Few yet know of the threat of an American reprisal. The Taliban long ago Banned television, and the lack of electricity keeps most people from listening to radio. The nation's 100 or so foreign aid workers suffer no such telecommunications handicaps, however, and today many of them began to flee their adopted home, fearing either the havoc of American bombs or the wrath of subsequent Afghan outrage. Around noon, a special United Nations flight evacuated the first of the expatriates. The remaining foreigners are expected to leave on Thursday, as will three, and perhaps all four, of the American parents here to observe the trial of their children, among eight foreign aid workers accused by the Taliban of preaching Christianity. As foreigners left, the Taliban took unusual precautions: they began searching every vehicle entering government compounds. Visitors were carefully frisked. But however much the Taliban hierarchy was beginning to fret, streets and bazaars were a picture of normality. Word has spread slowly about the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. And even when everyday Afghans heard the news, there were no accompanying video images to sear the horror into their memories. Personal conversations only carried the dull stimuli of abstract words: hijacked planes and collapsed buildings. Khair Khana, a man selling fertilizer in a market, knew just a bit about the attack. He thought a plane had crashed into the White House. And he considered the perpetrators, whoever they are, to be "enemies of God," though he also felt "Americans should look into their hearts and minds about why someone would kill themselves and others" in such a way. He had not thought much about an American retaliation against Afghanistan. When he did consider it, standing in a ramshackle collection of stalls, he shrugged and said: "Americans are powerful and can do anything they like without us stopping them." Nearby, a tailor, Abdul Malik, saw God's justice in America's pain because, as he understands it, the United States has armed the Afghan resistance to fight against the Taliban. "So they at least now know how it feels in their own country," he said. As for Mr. bin Laden, the tailor considered judgment of him to be God's affair. "If Osama is Islam's enemy, he should be gotten rid of," he said. "But if he is a good Muslim and wants Islam to prosper — and if America wants him dead — then we hope he destroys America." The common people of Afghanistan are often circumspect with their opinions. As one man said today: "Nobody here talks wholeheartedly any more; it can be dangerous." The Taliban are credited with improving safety. They disarmed the population, they put an end to banditry. But the security has come at a steep price. Women have been forced into head-to-toe gowns known as burqasand evicted from schools and the workplace. Men are obligated to wear long beards or face jail. Banned are musical instruments, chessBoards, playing cards, nail polish and neckties. Cheers at soccer matches are restricted to "Allah-u-akbar,"or God is great. Freedom of speech has bowed to religious totalitarianism. Various Taliban police forces patrol the streets. Today, in a derelict building that is used as a precinct office, one 25-year-old constable sat on the floor beneath a single dangling light bulb. His name was Muhammad Anwar. He had heard something about the attack in America but he had no idea how many were killed or what cities were involved. Indeed, it seemed unlikely that he had ever heard of New York. "Attacks like these are not a good thing because Muslims live all over the world and Muslims may have been killed," Mr. Anwar said hesitantly. By his reckoning, Americans were enemies of Afghanistan, as were Jews and Christians. He thought about this a bit more and retracted it partially. "There must have been all kinds of people in the building, not just bad Jews but good Jews, not just bad Christians but good ones." He remembered something he had learned in his madrassa, or religious school. "It is un-Islamic to kill innocent people," he said. |
Re: War....
well, i was actually working today.. well, after noon anyway, before that i was drinking.. in any event, i am sure that everyone was glad for my absense. Tho late, I must side with LL42 100%.
and just when i was begining to think that everyone was ignoring me in the hopes that i would go away, to the person that said: "America has been walking on glass a long time now, bearing the torch high. But cracks have appeared in the image, maybe it's time to drop the pretences. America is an empire and it controls a huge part of the world, why not admit it. But Someone will allways be on top and we could do a lot, lot worse than being under American domination." i have to thank, good to see someone who shares my point of view. Lastly, im hearing alot about American solidarity these days, but whenver i try to merge on the freeway, everyone is like "screw you, you tryin-to-merge-guy." |
Re: War....
Geoschmo,
Where is this 'process' for arranging secession that you described given in the Constitution? I'm fairly familiar with it, and I don't recall any such process. I think you are quoting something written AFTER the war by a Northern law scholar. I.O.W., Victor's Justification. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Therefore, since the power to GRANT a state the right to secede is not explicitly delegated to the Federal government NOR explicitly forbidden to the states in the Constitution, it is retained by the states themselves. If not for the problem of slavery, the North would have had no justification for its aggression against the South. Actually, since the South seceded before any legislation against slavery could be passed, the North had no legal justification for the war. You must appeal to 'extra legal' moral principles to justify it. Some people claim, as has been discussed here, that this was merely an excuse and the North just didn't want to lose territory and so political/economic power. But if you examine the history, yes, the war really was about slavery. The Dredd Scott decision threw the Northern states into a panic because it meant slavery could spread everywhere. The Republican party as formed and the Whig Party torn apart. The Republicans got a President into office on their first try after the Dredd Scott decision, Abraham Lincoln, and his platform included the abolition of slavery. As you have noted already, this is the one issue that would have defused the whole situation if it was removed. Most Northerners were determined to end it, and the most Southerners were determined not to let it be ended. In the long interim between election day and the old inauguration day (March 4th) the various states of the Confederacy decided to secede rather than face the difficult fight in Congress and the courts that they might well lose. They fully realized that they would have had questionable legitimacy if they attempted secession AFTER losing the legal battle over slavery. It's too bad Lincoln chose "political expediency" and didn't outlaw slavery by fiat until he absolutely had to, but he was deeply committed to "due process of law" and wanted to abolish slavery by proper legal proceedings. Have you ever read the Emancipation Proclamation? It does NOT free all slaves! It only freed slaves in the states that were rebelling. This was to prevent Great Britain from intervening in the war. Kentuckians kept their slaves until the 13th Amendment was passed. This is in keeping with Lincoln's principles. Since they did not rebel but respected the law, he wanted to treat them properly under the law. The really firebrand abolitionists felt betrayed, of course, and the controversy has never really ended to this day. Many people still claim the war was "not about slavery" largely because of this distinction that Lincoln made -- and ignore the huge historical record of the election debates of the time. Your Last line is the most important. Yes, the point is moot now. A latin saying discussed a long time ago in this forum comes to mind. Inter arma leges silent. In the face of arms the law is silent. [This message has been edited by Baron Munchausen (edited 15 September 2001).] |
Re: War....
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
Geoschmo, Where is this 'process' for arranging secession that you described given in the Constitution? I'm fairly familiar with it, and I don't recall any such process. I think you are quoting something written AFTER the war by a Northern law scholar. I.O.W., Victor's Justification. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Baron, there is no "process for arrnging seccesion" given in the constitution. What I was describing in my post was the process for amendment that would have to have been gone through legally to annul the Constitution as laid out in Article V. Any part of the Constitution, or all of it for that matter, that was originally written can be removed, or rewritten if the process set forth in Article V is followed. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Therefore, since the power to GRANT a state the right to secede is not explicitly delegated to the Federal government NOR explicitly forbidden to the states in the Constitution, it is retained by the states themselves.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Wrong. By seceding from the Union, the southern states were actually in violation of Article X, because they were trying to take away all the powers specifically delegated to the United tates by the Constitution, as set forth in all the other Articles before it. Article X was not an "out clause". It didn't and doesn't give any state the right to leave the Union. It doesn't even mention "rights", because States don't have rights. People have rights. States have powers. Now, if your argument is that the people of the south have a inalienable human right to stand up and say "You no longer represent me. I am forming a new country." I can't disagree with you. That's outside of the bounds of the Constitution. But if they do that, they don't have the right under the Constitution to take the State with them. That is part of the United States, unless removed from it by an act of Amendment to the Constitution. Geoschmo |
Re: War....
My mother found this site, take a moment and look at it. Look at the picture with the circle in it.
God Bless The USA |
Re: War....
And if you go here http://artbell.com/letters21.html
you can see the devil ( as we all know has 2 horns a tail and what looks like a broken wrench) Now I know I am going to draw rath here. But come on. Stuff like this really gets under my skin. It's horrible to look at these pictures. But even worse for people to take these pictures of pain and suffering and change them like they would change any other pictures. Sorry just really upsets me. No offence. ------------------ L? GdX $ Fr C++ SdT T+ Sf* Tcp+ A M++ MpTM ROTS Pw+ Fq+ Nd Rp++ G+ |
Re: War....
I thought it looked like fire to me, but nevertheless, people are entitled to their opinions. I thought it was a nice site, and passed it along. I am not making any judgments about the person who "saw" something, for that would be in bad taste, and despite what has happened, if seeing something that is or is not there helps him to heal, then so be it.
[This message has been edited by CNCRaymond (edited 15 September 2001).] |
Re: War....
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
Geoschmo, Abraham Lincoln, and his platform included the abolition of slavery. As you have noted already, this is the one issue that would have defused the whole situation if it was removed. Most Northerners were determined to end it, and the most Southerners were determined not to let it be ended. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I was going to post something earlier but the darn thing crashed and I lost everything I had typed after being close to completion but I feel a need to correct you here. Lincoln did NOT run on an Abolition platform. He and many others felt that Abolition, the belief that all slavery everywhere should be abolited by law in all states and territories in the US, was unconstitutional... as it was due to the fact that it was protected in the Constitution in several locations. This meant that nothing short of an amendment could end slavery and of course the Southern states while lower in population in the house still had equal numbers in the Senate. This brings us to Lincolns party platform. His was the Free Soil Platform. Under this slavery would be Banned from the Territories and not the States. In this way they hoped to lead slavery to a "natural death" as eventually the territories became free states and eventually would go to the Senate and gain a majority capable of passing an amendment. In point of fact the idea that such a law as Free Soil would be passed was rather slim and remote based on the fact that the South DID have a strong holding in the Senate. The Civil War was largely due to paranoia. And just to be complete here the spark that set it all off was the Mexican American War and the new territories it brought into the US, which rendered all the old half measures and bargains on how to divide the US between slave and free mute and obsolete as they didn't deal with that area. [This message has been edited by Cyrien (edited 15 September 2001).] |
Re: War....
Geoschmo,
Well, here we have the same disagreement more than a century after the war is over. Amendment X is in plain English, I don't see how you can misinterpret it. I suppose this issue will come up again, as the Federal government grows more and more tyrranical some states are likely to secede again one day, though not in the immediate future with this crisis. I expect some of the Western states to try before this century is over, though. Here's an interesting test: If the issue had NOT been slavery, if there were no slaves in the South, do you think the North would have fought the Civil War to keep those states in the Union? I don't think so. Cyrien, I was not aware that slavery was "protected" anywhere in the Constitution. The only mention that I was aware of was the "three-fifths compromise" that made slaves count as three people for every five slaves in the calculation of population for representation. I would hardly call that "protection". Where else is slavery mentioned? Ok, I didn't have an actual copy of Lincoln's platform so I didn't know the legal niceties of it. But anyway, he was definitely out to end slavery if by a more gradual means than directly outlawing it. Some have held otherwise because of his legal maneuvers around Emancipation. Finally, though, I'd hardly call the Mexican War the 'spark'. More than a decade passed before the war broke out. The new territories increased the pressure, but it was the Dred Scott decision that shattered the political landscape. John Brown's raid didn't help, either, of course. [This message has been edited by Baron Munchausen (edited 15 September 2001).] |
Re: War....
Article I
Section 9. The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person. Article IV Section 2 No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due. In addition to the mentioned three fifths clause. While not explicitly or directly protected in the Constitution (beyond 1808 that is) though many politicians of the time argued that it was protected by the ratification of the Constitution by those States at the time having signed it being under Slavery and thus recieving a protection from it in addition to several clauses related to property and trade and other prohibitions that could be viewed as directly affecting slavery due to the argument they are essential to the Economy of the South and that by going the route of abolition it would show trade preference to the North. No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another. In such ways was it argued that the Constitution directly protected the rights of the Slave states. In any case this does not in any way affect the historical accuracy of what Lincoln ran under and what the Republican Party of the time supported, which was NOT abolition but Free Soil which would eventually and slowly lead to abolition. EDITED The 10th Amendment is not seen today as limiting the authority of the federal government where the exercise of its powers might interfere with those of the states. The reverse was the case, however, from the time that Roger Brooke Taney became (1836) chief justice of the Supreme Court until a century later. During that time, in famous cases such as Collector v. Day (1871), Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918), and Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States (1935), the 10th Amendment had been cited to curtail powers of Congress. [This message has been edited by Cyrien (edited 15 September 2001).] |
Re: War....
Damn. EDIT++<Contenintal>(Spelling) is going to lay off 12000 people.
------------------ L? GdX $ Fr C++ SdT T+ Sf* Tcp+ A M++ MpTM ROTS Pw+ Fq+ Nd Rp++ G+ [This message has been edited by tesco samoa (edited 16 September 2001).] |
Re: War....
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Article I Section 9. The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person. Article IV Section 2 No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, you never know when you might learn something. I can now see how the Dred Scott decision came about. The Missouri Compromise really was unconstitutional. It's interesting that Article 4, Section 2 was not totally "superseded" by the 13th Amendment. They merely outlawed 'involuntary' servitude. You could still find situations where that could be applied in law today. And I find it interesting that Amendment X was interpreted as I suggest during the period when the Civil War was fought. [This message has been edited by Baron Munchausen (edited 15 September 2001).] |
Re: War....
Ah, foobar -- it's now widely reported that Masood's family has confirmed his death resulting from injuries caused at a press conference a week (?) or so ago -- two people with a bomb in their camera got in by posing as journalists.
FYI, Masood was, perhaps, the most important leader in unifying the Afghan anti-Taliban opposition forces, which had been highly fragmented in the interval between the withdrawal of the Soviet Union and the sudden appearance of the Taliban movement. His coalition only controls an estimated 5% of the country, but if the US were to get off the fence and actively support an anti-Taliban faction (rather than mere verbal criticism and lack of diplomatic recognition, while watching them take over), or go further and attempt to install its own government, Masood would have been a logical choice for a major participant. ------------------ -- The thing that goes bump in the night |
Re: War....
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tesco samoa:
Damn. UA is going to lay off 12000 people. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yep, the consequences of this attack are going to be very real. People are now afraid to travel and will only do so when necessary, at least for a while. The whole airline industry is facing collapse. Bush has put on a decent 'brave face' for these first few days, but he's really going to have his leadership abilities tested keeping things together. What worries me is this is also a "propoganda coup" for the terrorists. They will now be 10 times more popular among the radicalized portion of the Islamic populations and be able to attract more recruits and money. I hope the non-radical governments will not be intimidated and will cooperate to stop them. |
Re: War....
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tesco samoa:
Damn. UA is going to lay off 12000 people.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And Ansett Australia Airways here in Aust just went over the top, that's 16000 jobs gone. One year ago there were 4 big airlines flying domestic routes here, one year later 2 were gone... And that marks the third large corporation going broke this year I think, after One Tel and HIH. Time to talk about voting out the current government! |
Re: War....
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
BRUSSELS, Belgium (CNN) -- Two men believed to have been planning an attack on American interests in Europe have been charged in Belgium with possession of weapons of war. Prosecutors said on Saturday that the two men charged face four separate counts, but they would not say what the other charges were. The men, who were arrested on Thursday, were members of a radical Muslim group, said Fabienne Laduron, spokeswoman for Brussels prosecutor's office. She said they were not ruling out a connection with Osama bin Laden. The men were taken into custody in co-ordination with Netherlands authorities, who arrested four others in Rotterdam on Friday. Police were analysing documentation that indicated the men were planning on attacking American interests in Europe. France is sending two magistrates who specialise in terror cases to Brussels on Monday to consult on the case. A French radio station, Europe 1, reported that the American embassy in Paris was a target. Laduron could not confirm that report. One of the men arrested in Brussels was Tunisian, and the other was a Belgian national of North African descent. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is getting out of hand. If even naturalized citizens of Western nations are turning into agents of the terrorists we're in big trouble. [This message has been edited by Baron Munchausen (edited 15 September 2001).] |
Re: War....
For those of you who jumped off topic and argued about the southern rebellion back in the 1860's, The US Consitution is a binding contracts between the states. Attempting to leave is a breach of the contract and it is stated under the powers of the Federal Constitution that it can 'supress revolts'
In addition, it is the right of the people, not the states, to overthrow illegal, immoral, and severaly corrupt governments and replace it with a new one. However, the South had no base for this argument as they were the ones trying to prevent thier immoral and illegal state governments intact. That is why the 14th amendment Federalized the Bill of Rights, because the states kept abusing the Bill of Rights. [ June 13, 2003, 07:09: Message edited by: General Talashar ] |
Re: War....
Hey every one .
I just wanted to let everyone know that I went to a wedding today it it was nice seeing an event that shaped the world for the better. I feel that I will get a good sleep tonight for the first time in a while. Even the food was good. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif I hope the rest of you have a good night or day and I hope this post finds you all in better spirits and good health. ------------------ L? GdX $ Fr C++ SdT T+ Sf* Tcp+ A M++ MpTM ROTS Pw+ Fq+ Nd Rp++ G+ |
Re: War....
What ever those people thought they could do by striking at America's heart has horribly backfired. They've united this country in a way that only war can and now... well... now they have sealed thier fate
[ June 13, 2003, 07:09: Message edited by: General Talashar ] |
Re: War....
One can see a few possibly intended effects.
The first is psychological shock. Apparently, quite a few citizens were unaware of the possibility of foreign terrorism hitting U.S. soil (by which I mean Stateside; embassies are nominally U.S. sovereign territory and have been hit before). This shock is undoubtably going to cause some to wonder whether the U.S. should revise its foreign policy by, say, pulling out of the Middle East -- withdrawing support for, say, Saudi Arabia and Israel, for instance, in the name of peace. With this president and this foreign policy staff, this seems, er, unlikely to actually happen, but if there is a seemingly endless series of incidents against which the three-letter-agencies seem helpless the penduluum *could* swing. Another effect is going to be unwarranted rage against American Arabs, and anybody that seemingly *looks* like an Arab -- e.g. Sikhs with their turbans. Some footage of anti-Arab riots, perhaps some mosques on fire or a few shootings, and that's new material for recruitment videos. Likewise, if the military response, assuming it occurs, appears ineffective or even incompetent, *especially* with collateral damage, that's also golden for Al Qaeda and friends. To a lesser extent, there may be improvements in immigration security / border controls, but these could also cause resentment among non-Americans, especially if they are seen to be more restrictive towards Middle Easterners. Can we say, "racial profiling"? Then, there are going to be attempts at increasing security with less regard for civil liberties -- restrictions on encryption technology, for instance, have already been demanded and are much more likely to get Congressional / Presidential approval in this climate, methinks. Taken too far, these measures may increase anti-government sentiment among some. A potentially very dangerous effect is the sudden focus on airport / airline security. Assume that these attacks were part of a coordinated plan, and that there may already be other cells already located stateside just in case *all* international travel was locked down. Locking down airports more is an obvious response, so there are at least three major options regarding next target. The first would be that civillian aircraft make fine missiles, but it's worth waiting until the current frenzy dies down -- perhaps in a few months, the country will be less vigilant. The second approach is that the psychological impact will be increased if the FAA and other Federal entities declare that it's safe to fly, and then to strike again at the height of alleged security -- thus suggesting that the security organizations are still impotent and that the actors can strike whenever they choose. A third approach is to use an entirely different vector; while the country scrutizines airport safety; to examine completely different approaches such as tampering with water supplies; mining harbors used by huge cruise ships; perhaps spreading anthrax or other agents among the rescue volunteers (many of whom came from across the country; and most of whom will return, thus increasing dispersal); or even noticing that the President came, in person, to one site, and therefore planning an ambush with explosives or a rifleman (who presumably would not mind being cut to pieces by return fire from the Secret Service). It'll help to be careful at an airport, but folks should remember that those *aren't* the only possible targets. ------------------ -- The thing that goes bump in the night |
Re: War....
Question if US is at war with those who harbour terriosts. Does this mean that US is at war with Ireland and the Sinn Finn?
------------------ L? GdX $ Fr C++ SdT T+ Sf* Tcp+ A M++ MpTM ROTS Pw+ Fq+ Nd Rp++ G+ |
Re: War....
That is a good question. If we hold true and don't make a difference, then we'll set back the cause for irish independence and unification for a century.
But if we don't, then they'll have nothing to worry about. All I know is that I'm fedup with 'experts' and 'ceremonies'. Time to mobilize. Of course, war would be easier wage these days if the news meida would shut thier big flapping traps and giving away the battle plans. [ June 13, 2003, 07:09: Message edited by: General Talashar ] |
Re: War....
I have a strange feeling that the media is making up half their stuff.
My sister ( who works at an air port ) was telling me that you cannot even bring nail clippers any more. ANd electric stuff can only be on carry on. And if you do not have batteries or cannot plug it in to see if it works. GOne. Just passing this info along. Will let you all know other stuff as I find out. ------------------ L? GdX $ Fr C++ SdT T+ Sf* Tcp+ A M++ MpTM ROTS Pw+ Fq+ Nd Rp++ G+ |
Re: War....
Tesco,
No, that all sounds quite reasonable. Electronic equipment, even simple radios, can be converted to bombs. In fact, the timing circuits of a clock-radio are an ideal component of a bomb. Just strip out the 'radio' part and leave the timer face plate to show it ticking along and fill it with pLastique. So, it makes perfect sense to make people prove that their electronic equipment works. This might turn out to be a more original response than I had been expecting. Have you noticed that the media reports Colin Powell making a speech every single day to the Armed Forces to "get ready"? This is not for their benefit. He can speak to them any time through direct channels. This is for the benefit of the terrorists. It's time for them to live on edge for a while. And now today they are saying 'expect something unconventional' for our response. Let's see, how about a permanent air-cover over Afghanistan, with lots of sonic-booms as they 'practice' air maneuvers and whatnot. Every so often, when a good target like a terrorist camp is spotted, a bomb or missile will drop. Could be one at a time, could be a dozen at a time, but you never know when. I hope they will be careful about civilians, of course. Special forces/commandos can be sent it to hit targets too close to civilians for conventional bombing. Training new terrorists could be difficult when you are under constant surveillance and attack. Back in the industrialized world, they can start seizing Bin Laden's assets, and capturing a terrorist cell every day or so to geneate a headline. They probably know about enough of them by now to keep that up for weeks. If they deliberately set out to make the terrorists nervous, like they ought to be since THEY are the criminals, they might succeed in turning the tables and eventually breaking their organization. The constant news of little victories could work to counter the terror effect of the recent attack, too. [This message has been edited by Baron Munchausen (edited 17 September 2001).] |
Re: War....
Heh, I just read this huge argument in a Star Trek forum about the Eugenics War that takes place late 90's was cut out of the Star Trek lineage for the simple reason it never happened in our reality.
Roddenbury projected deaths would have been up around 37m. Funny now we are going to war in the same time period. Maybe in Trek's WW3 in 2050's destroyed and confused some records after all.... [ June 13, 2003, 07:08: Message edited by: General Talashar ] |
Re: War....
Anniversary bump
|
Re: War....
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif
but trying to be http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif After all, it is my little sister's birthday. Need to keep that chin up, eh? |
Re: War....
In a way this is a sad day, as we look back on what happened, but it is also a day to be proud. We survived, we are rebuilding, and we are moving on.
Osama bin Laden, assuming he is still alive, is cowering in some hole somewhere. The Taliban have lost control of Afghanistan, and are also in hiding (what is left of them). I wonder who won the first major exchange.... |
Re: War....
But it is not over by a long shot. An enemy you can't see can be even more dangerous. The Taliban will not stop until they are all dead or in prison.
|
Re: War....
Quote:
|
Re: War....
Quote:
|
Re: War....
It was interesting reading this thread...
This was back in a time when most of us were getting to know one another... It is good to read from familier posters and some of the ones who have not been here in a while... Out of the media blitz that has become this day i wish that everyone would read http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101...o.html?cnn=yes It is true to the heart... ( my opinion....) I also think that Time did a great tribute Last year with the list of names and pictures... As well as U2 and the 'Where the streets have no names' and the list of names on the two towers. Take Care everyone and i hope this finds you in greater spirits.... as the day goes by... |
Re: War....
And one year later it's still the same.
How depressing. [ September 13, 2002, 16:24: Message edited by: Askan Nightbringer ] |
Re: War....
<bumpity bump>
this is really a trip (in time) at first i thought it was real, until i read the date adn was like (good, not a repeat) |
Re: War....
God, How things have chanced in the past 2 years. Interesting thread.
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:13 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.