An open letter to David Nieporent

Unclaimed Mysteries wrote:
> Jolly Rogers wrote:
>> "Sam Hutcheson" <samh RemoveThis @bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Claims that the Civil War was about anything other than slavery is
>>>> simply revisionist history, not much different than the people who
>>>> claim the Germans really didn't mean to kill Jews, but that it
>>>> just happened due to disease and such. It's not vindictive
>>>> northerners and politically correct
>>>> people saying that the Civil War was about slavery; it was the
>>>> Confederate
>>>> states who said it.
>>>> --
>>>> David M. Nieporent
>>> After some consideration I believe you were right and I was wrong,
>>> on this issue at least.
>>
>> Many Liberals and African descendents herald Lincoln as the greatest
>> president in the history of the United States.
>>
>> "I have urged the colonization of the Negroes (back to Africa), and
>> I shall continue. My Emancipation Proclamation was linked with this
>> plan (of colonization). There is no room for two distinct races of
>> White men in America, much less for two distinct races of Whites and
>> Blacks ... I can think of no greater calamity than the assimilation
>> of the negro into our social and political life as our equal ...
>> Within twenty years we can peacefully colonize the Negro ... under
>> conditions in which he can rise to the full measure of manhood. This
>> he can never do here. We can never attain the ideal union our
>> fathers dreamed, with millions of an alien, inferior race among us,
>> whose assimilation is neither possible nor desirable." -- President
>> Abraham Lincoln I'm afraid you and your kind are the revisionists with
>> regards to the
>> history of America, including the true intentions of the Founders
>> with regards to the original Constitution, Sam.
>>
>> Lincoln understood the intent of the Founders, and he was a true
>> visionary in foreseeing the great calamity that would ensue over
>> time as a result of not repatriating Africans back to Africa.
>>
>> You're a sad, pathetic, dishonest man, Sam.
>>
>
> Deflection, distraction, reframing. If there's an opening for junior
> spinner in Karl Rove's office in Washington you are SO THERE, D00D.

that was a really mean thing to say about rove, and he didn't deserve a bit
of that. poor karl.

--
zig zigalo
"ride fast, take lots of chances"- curt
 >> Stay informed about: An open letter to David Nieporent 

"Unclaimed Mysteries"
<the_letter_k_and_the_numeral_4_doh.DeleteThis@unclaimedmysteries.net> wrote:

> Deflection, distraction, reframing. If there's an opening for junior
> spinner in Karl Rove's office in Washington you are SO THERE, D00D.

Examine every piece of related evidence produced by the FBI, the CIA, the
U.S. Census Bureau, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, the World Health
Organization, the United Nations, the World Health Organization, the U.S.
Justice Department, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

There is absolutely no doubt. Lincoln's worst fears regarding this topic
have been realized many times over. Only a fool would pretend otherwise.

--
Jolly Rogers




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
 >> Stay informed about: An open letter to David Nieporent 

Jolly Rogers wrote:
> "Unclaimed Mysteries"
> <the_letter_k_and_the_numeral_4_doh.DeleteThis@unclaimedmysteries.net> wrote:
>
>> Deflection, distraction, reframing. If there's an opening for junior
>> spinner in Karl Rove's office in Washington you are SO THERE, D00D.
>
> Examine every piece of related evidence produced by the FBI, the CIA, the
> U.S. Census Bureau, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, the World Health
> Organization, the United Nations, the World Health Organization, the U.S.
> Justice Department, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
>
> There is absolutely no doubt. Lincoln's worst fears regarding this topic
> have been realized many times over. Only a fool would pretend otherwise.
>


I've got a better idea: try examining the thread. It concerned the
motivation of the _Southern_States_ for seceding. It had nothing to do
with what YOU want to turn it into.

PETITION DENIED.

--
It Came From Corry Lee Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net

In a time of deception telling the truth is a revolutionary act. -
George Orwell
 >> Stay informed about: An open letter to David Nieporent 

On Jul 9, 3:02 pm, Lance Freezeland
<freezelandlaw.nos....TakeThisOut@consolidated.net> wrote:
>
> All these years, I've been at least able to say that Sam correctly
> understood that the Civil War was about self-determination,

Don't know if you're serious, but if you are you're just flat
wrong. It's easy to find references from the time about
seceding over slavery, damned near impossible about anything else.

At the time. I've referenced Jim Epperson's collection of
contemporary documents in the past. They're worth checking out.

> and not slavery. Now, he's gone soft on that issue as well.

There's an interesting pre-war correspondence between Lincoln and
Alexander Stephens. At one point (in response to a wistful,
how did we end up here comment) Lincoln wrote:

"Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican
administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their
slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to
assure
you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is
no cause for such fears. The South would be no more danger in this
respect,
than it was in the days of Washington.

I suppose, however, this does not meet the case. You think slavery
is
right and ought to be extended; while we think it is wrong and ought
to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub. It certainly is the only
substantial difference between us."

Stephens appears to agree with the proposition. In a March 1861 speech
he said, "African Slavery ... was the immediate cause of the late
rupture
and present revolution." (And he was as strong a states rights man
as can be found. Got involved in many disputes between Davis and
Joseph Brown. Always siding with the state)
 >> Stay informed about: An open letter to David Nieporent 

On Jul 10, 5:44 pm, Lance Freezeland
<freezelandlaw.nos....DeleteThis@consolidated.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 14:18:20 -0700, Ron Johnson
> <john....DeleteThis@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> gave us:
>
> >On Jul 9, 3:02 pm, Lance Freezeland
> ><freezelandlaw.nos....DeleteThis@consolidated.net> wrote:
> >> All these years, I've been at least able to say that Sam correctly
> >> understood that the Civil War was about self-determination,
> >Don't know if you're serious, but if you are you're just flat
> >wrong. It's easy to find references from the time about
> >seceding over slavery, damned near impossible about anything else.
>
> Of course, slavery was the issue of the day, but the debate was just
> as much about "choice" as is the debate now with abortion as the
> direct object of that verb. I think that you'll find that many of the
> documents speak of slavery in terms of making their own decisions
> concerning it, and not having the federal government superseding that
> judgment.
>
> And since the names of Jefferson and Madison have already appeared in
> this thread, I feel that I should note that they also wrote some very
> state's rights friendly documents. Notably, the Kentucky Resolutions
> authored by Jefferson and the Virginia Resolution authored by Madison.
> These resolutions advance the idea that the Federal Union is a
> voluntary association of states and if the central government goes too
> far, each state has the right to nullify that law.
>
> According to then Vice-President Jefferson:
>
> "Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of
> America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to
> their general government; but that by compact under the style and
> title of a Constitution for the United States and of amendments
> thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes,
> delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving each
> State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own
> self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes
> undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no
> force: That to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an
> integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other
> party....each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of
> infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."
>
> http://www.constitution.org/cons/kent1798.htm
>
> http://www.constitution.org/cons/virg1798.htm
>
> Consider too the ever popular Dred Scott v. Sandford decision of the
> SCOTUS in 1856, which summed up many people's thoughts. To refresh
> everyone's memory, here was the holding of the Court:
>
> States do not have the right to claim an individuals property that was
> fairly theirs in another state. Property cannot cease to exist as a
> result of changing jurisdiction. A free negro of the African race,
> whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is
> not a "citizen" within the meaning of the Constitution of the United
> States. And not being "citizens" within the meaning of the
> Constitution, they are not entitled to sue in that character in a
> court of the United States, and the Circuit Court has not jurisdiction
> in such a suit. Furthermore, the parts of the Missouri Compromise
> creating free territories were unconstitutional because Congress had
> no authority to abolish slavery in federal territories.
>
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0060_0393_ZS....
>
> Now, if that's not an argument in favor of states' rights, I don't
> know what one is.

Are you seriously arguing in FAVOR of Dred Scot?

s/
 >> Stay informed about: An open letter to David Nieporent 

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 14:18:20 -0700, Ron Johnson
<johnson.RemoveThis@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> gave us:
>On Jul 9, 3:02 pm, Lance Freezeland
><freezelandlaw.nos....RemoveThis@consolidated.net> wrote:

>> All these years, I've been at least able to say that Sam correctly
>> understood that the Civil War was about self-determination,

>Don't know if you're serious, but if you are you're just flat
>wrong. It's easy to find references from the time about
>seceding over slavery, damned near impossible about anything else.

Of course, slavery was the issue of the day, but the debate was just
as much about "choice" as is the debate now with abortion as the
direct object of that verb. I think that you'll find that many of the
documents speak of slavery in terms of making their own decisions
concerning it, and not having the federal government superseding that
judgment.

And since the names of Jefferson and Madison have already appeared in
this thread, I feel that I should note that they also wrote some very
state's rights friendly documents. Notably, the Kentucky Resolutions
authored by Jefferson and the Virginia Resolution authored by Madison.
These resolutions advance the idea that the Federal Union is a
voluntary association of states and if the central government goes too
far, each state has the right to nullify that law.

According to then Vice-President Jefferson:

"Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of
America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to
their general government; but that by compact under the style and
title of a Constitution for the United States and of amendments
thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes,
delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving each
State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own
self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes
undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no
force: That to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an
integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other
party....each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of
infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."

http://www.constitution.org/cons/kent1798.htm

http://www.constitution.org/cons/virg1798.htm

Consider too the ever popular Dred Scott v. Sandford decision of the
SCOTUS in 1856, which summed up many people's thoughts. To refresh
everyone's memory, here was the holding of the Court:

States do not have the right to claim an individuals property that was
fairly theirs in another state. Property cannot cease to exist as a
result of changing jurisdiction. A free negro of the African race,
whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is
not a "citizen" within the meaning of the Constitution of the United
States. And not being "citizens" within the meaning of the
Constitution, they are not entitled to sue in that character in a
court of the United States, and the Circuit Court has not jurisdiction
in such a suit. Furthermore, the parts of the Missouri Compromise
creating free territories were unconstitutional because Congress had
no authority to abolish slavery in federal territories.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0060_0393_ZS.html

Now, if that's not an argument in favor of states' rights, I don't
know what one is.

--
Lance

Go St. Louis Cardinals!
2006 WORLD SERIES CHAMPIONS
National League Central Division Champions
1996, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
 >> Stay informed about: An open letter to David Nieporent 

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 15:09:40 -0700, "Hutcheson, Sam"
<samh DeleteThis @bellsouth.net> gave us:

>On Jul 10, 5:44 pm, Lance Freezeland
><freezelandlaw.nos... DeleteThis @consolidated.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 14:18:20 -0700, Ron Johnson
>> <john... DeleteThis @ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> gave us:
>>
>> >On Jul 9, 3:02 pm, Lance Freezeland
>> ><freezelandlaw.nos... DeleteThis @consolidated.net> wrote:
>> >> All these years, I've been at least able to say that Sam correctly
>> >> understood that the Civil War was about self-determination,
>> >Don't know if you're serious, but if you are you're just flat
>> >wrong. It's easy to find references from the time about
>> >seceding over slavery, damned near impossible about anything else.
>>
>> Of course, slavery was the issue of the day, but the debate was just
>> as much about "choice" as is the debate now with abortion as the
>> direct object of that verb. I think that you'll find that many of the
>> documents speak of slavery in terms of making their own decisions
>> concerning it, and not having the federal government superseding that
>> judgment.
>>
>> And since the names of Jefferson and Madison have already appeared in
>> this thread, I feel that I should note that they also wrote some very
>> state's rights friendly documents. Notably, the Kentucky Resolutions
>> authored by Jefferson and the Virginia Resolution authored by Madison.
>> These resolutions advance the idea that the Federal Union is a
>> voluntary association of states and if the central government goes too
>> far, each state has the right to nullify that law.
>>
>> According to then Vice-President Jefferson:
>>
>> "Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of
>> America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to
>> their general government; but that by compact under the style and
>> title of a Constitution for the United States and of amendments
>> thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes,
>> delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving each
>> State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own
>> self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes
>> undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no
>> force: That to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an
>> integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other
>> party....each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of
>> infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."
>>
>> http://www.constitution.org/cons/kent1798.htm
>>
>> http://www.constitution.org/cons/virg1798.htm
>>
>> Consider too the ever popular Dred Scott v. Sandford decision of the
>> SCOTUS in 1856, which summed up many people's thoughts. To refresh
>> everyone's memory, here was the holding of the Court:
>>
>> States do not have the right to claim an individuals property that was
>> fairly theirs in another state. Property cannot cease to exist as a
>> result of changing jurisdiction. A free negro of the African race,
>> whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is
>> not a "citizen" within the meaning of the Constitution of the United
>> States. And not being "citizens" within the meaning of the
>> Constitution, they are not entitled to sue in that character in a
>> court of the United States, and the Circuit Court has not jurisdiction
>> in such a suit. Furthermore, the parts of the Missouri Compromise
>> creating free territories were unconstitutional because Congress had
>> no authority to abolish slavery in federal territories.
>>
>> http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0060_0393_ZS....
>>
>> Now, if that's not an argument in favor of states' rights, I don't
>> know what one is.
>
>Are you seriously arguing in FAVOR of Dred Scot?

Are you seriously this dumb? I'm citing it as capturing a popular
sentiment of the day (1856).

--
Lance

"Where, oh where, are you tonight? How could you leave me here
all alone? I searched the world over and thought I found true
love. You met another and PFFT you were gone!"
-- noted American philosopher Archie Campbell

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
 >> Stay informed about: An open letter to David Nieporent 

"Lance Freezeland" <freezelandlaw.nospam.RemoveThis@consolidated.net> wrote
> Of course, slavery was the issue of the day, but the debate was just
> as much about "choice" as is the debate now with abortion as the
> direct object of that verb.

I'm certainly not remotely as knowledgeable on the civil war argument as any
of you guys, but if this is a valid parallel, it seems to me that the
"states rights
or slavery" dichotomy may well be a false one. Decades down the road people
may discuss whether the abortion debate was about abortion or about choice.
Well, it's clear to me it's about both things, depending on whom you ask.

Just because the abortion debate is from some viewpoint about where the
cutoff is on self-determination with abortion as its motivator, that doesn't
mean
the issue isn't primarily about abortion. I think if you polled the vast
majority of abortion opponents and asked them what the most important aspect
of the abortion debate is, they'd say it's about the sanctity of life and an
abhorrent practice they consider murder. The question of choice is not
something they don't think about, but I really don't think that's the
primary issue for them. The primary issue is stopping something they think
is evil.

To that end, it's all good and well to be citing what the academic thinkers
and even high-level politicians if the day thought, but I'd be interested to
learn what the popular sentiment was that facilitated their move to war (and
this is not something I claim to know). It sounds from what sam has posted
like the powers that be were emphasizing slavery heavily in their arguments,
which suggests to me that they thought this would have populist appeal. It
seems that the states had been relinquishing rights for decades without
going to war, so there must have been something particularly inflammatory
about slavery as THE issue that triggered war. On the other hand, though, i
could easily imagine some portion of the southern populace being pissed off
at perceiving they were being told what to do or not to do.

Colin
 >> Stay informed about: An open letter to David Nieporent 

"Sam Hutcheson" <samh.RemoveThis@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1183999260.233126.250950@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
: After some consideration I believe you were right and I was wrong, on
: this issue at least.
:
: s/

As I scan part of this thread, I've come to a conclusion. I'm bettin your
shiny ass will think twice before admitting to an error again, huh?

--
SB
 >> Stay informed about: An open letter to David Nieporent 

"Ron Johnson" <johnson DeleteThis @ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote:

>> All these years, I've been at least able to say that Sam correctly
>> understood that the Civil War was about self-determination,
>
> Don't know if you're serious, but if you are you're just flat
> wrong. It's easy to find references from the time about
> seceding over slavery, damned near impossible about anything else.

You're confusing the issue, Ron. It's one thing to argue about the *act* of
sitting in a chair, but the broader implication in such an argument is the
*right to decide* to sit in a chair.

Likewise, the CSA's argument was about the *right to decide* how to handle
their nation's affairs, which certainly included the *act* of owning slaves,
but the greater assertion was always about self-determination.

--
Jolly Rogers



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
 >> Stay informed about: An open letter to David Nieporent 

"Hutcheson, Sam" <samh DeleteThis @bellsouth.net> wrote:

>> Now, if that's not an argument in favor of states' rights, I don't
>> know what one is.
>
> Are you seriously arguing in FAVOR of Dred Scot?

See? He conveniently takes up any side of an issue that suits his purpose.
He does not hold any defendable positions, similar to Ben and a few other
Liberals in this newsgroup.

Their side is destined to fail because its constituents rarely employ logic
or objective thinking.

--
Jolly Rogers



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
 >> Stay informed about: An open letter to David Nieporent 

Lance Freezeland pisze:

>>> http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0060_0393_ZS....
>>>
>>> Now, if that's not an argument in favor of states' rights, I don't
>>> know what one is.
>> Are you seriously arguing in FAVOR of Dred Scot?
>
> Are you seriously this dumb?

Yes, he is.

pzdr

TRad
 >> Stay informed about: An open letter to David Nieporent 

"Tomasz Radko" <trad RemoveThis @interia.pl> wrote:

>>> Are you seriously arguing in FAVOR of Dred Scot?
>>
>> Are you seriously this dumb?
>
> Yes, he is.

He's not dumb, he just has a lot of emotionally-driven beliefs that he
cannot support or defend.

--
Jolly Rogers





----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
 >> Stay informed about: An open letter to David Nieporent