An open letter to David Nieporent

In article <5finolF3c322cU1.TakeThisOut@mid.individual.net>,
"Colin William" <colintwilliam.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "Lance Freezeland" <freezelandlaw.nospam.TakeThisOut@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.
>
or in other words the two groups are "pro-choice" and "anti-abortion"

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

Unclaimed Mysteries wrote:
> Jolly Rogers wrote:
>
>> "Hutcheson, Sam" <samh.RemoveThis@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.
>>
>
> Thanks, Rush ($1).

I think Adolf gets that Internets dollar.
(Hitler, Eichmann, take your pick...)

Hey, Unclaimed--didn't you useta post to RATMM?
 >> 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.

Not really. See for instance the South's complaints about Northern
states not being forced to do more to recapture escaped slaves.

Catton goes into great detail on the Democrat's convention
because it's such a critical event. Very doubtful
that the Republicans could have won if the Democrats had
fielded a united party (among other things, in most of the
South, attempting to vote Republican was hazardous to your
health)

And it's absolutely clear that there was only one substantial
issue between Douglas and the delegations under Yancy's
leadership.

Douglas proposed to campaign on the 1856 platform. Yancy said
fine, provided the following was added:

"Resolved, that the Democracy of the United States hold these
cardinal principles on the subject of slavery in the Territories;

First that Congress has no power to abolish slavery in the
Territories.

Second, that the Territorial Legislature has no power to
abolish slavery in any Territory, nor to prohibit the introduction
of slaves therein, nor any power to exclude slavery therefrom,
nor any right to destroy or impair the right of property in slaves
by any legislation whatever."

When this resolution was voted down, the Southern delegations
walked out.

There were no differences on tariffs (which is more popularly
cited by the myth makers) or anything else.

> 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."

Sure. But Jefferson's views on government and society
were never close to mainstream. He argued against a standing
army and ... well pretty much everything Hamilton thought
was needed Jefferson opposed.

Hell, he argued that the second amendment constrained only
congress, which is why he fought the seditious libel laws on
states rights grounds.

But it's important to note that Hamilton supported Jefferson
over Burr (and that mattered profoundly) precisely
because Jefferson believed in compromise.
 >> Stay informed about: An open letter to David Nieporent 

On Jul 11, 2:14 pm, "Colin William" <colintwill... RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Dick Sidbury" <DrJamesSidb... RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote
>
> > or in other words the two groups are "pro-choice" and "anti-abortion"
>
> Indeed. To which end, disregarding for a moment what the political
> philosophers were saying, what was the issue of most concern to people in
> the south - the abstract concept of "states rights", or issues like being
> scared to death of what might happen if slaves got freed?

Well there was a fair amount of weird talk about how the
Northerners wanted to force the mixing of the races, but
the real concern seems to have been simply how to grow
cotton without slaves.
 >> Stay informed about: An open letter to David Nieporent 

Unclaimed Mysteries wrote:
> Dirk wrote:
>
>> Unclaimed Mysteries wrote:
>>
>>> Jolly Rogers wrote:
>>>
>>>> "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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks, Rush ($1).
>>
>>
>> I think Adolf gets that Internets dollar.
>> (Hitler, Eichmann, take your pick...)
>>
>> Hey, Unclaimed--didn't you useta post to RATMM?
>
>
> I don't recognize that acronym. Most of my damage is either in the
> notorious rec.sport.football.college, rec.photo.digital, alt.slack (!),
> or hsv.general.

I was thinking of the Mystery Science Theater NG,
rec.arts.tv.mst3k.misc, which was a source of frivolity some years
back--I guess I thought you were someone else.
 >> Stay informed about: An open letter to David Nieporent 

On Jul 10, 6:31 pm, Lance Freezeland
<freezelandlaw.nos....DeleteThis@consolidated.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 15:09:40 -0700, "Hutcheson, Sam"
> <s....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).

It needed clarifying, Lance. You've been known to defend the
indefensible before, just to hear yourself argue.

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

On Jul 10, 11:11 pm, "bgs" <b....RemoveThis@mindless.com> wrote:
> "Sam Hutcheson" <s....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?

No, not really. I knew some people would use my post as a launching
point to defend the states' rights view of things. It's as inevitable
as gambling and P*t* R*s*. I knew our resident white supremacist
would use it as a sounding board for another white supremacist rant,
but you can post a thread about buying a used card and the loon will
as likely as not randomly steer it into his pet bigotries. I could
have even have guessed that Tomasz would pop up somewhere and try to
make a snide comment without managing to actually land the trick.
None of these things would stop me from making any future admission of
error should I deem it necessary. I certainly won't be swayed to post
or not to post by the random howlings of the loon and the Pole.

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

"Dick Sidbury" <DrJamesSidbury DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote
> or in other words the two groups are "pro-choice" and "anti-abortion"

Indeed. To which end, disregarding for a moment what the political
philosophers were saying, what was the issue of most concern to people in
the south - the abstract concept of "states rights", or issues like being
scared to death of what might happen if slaves got freed?

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

"Ron Johnson" <johnson RemoveThis @ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote
>> Indeed. To which end, disregarding for a moment what the political
>> philosophers were saying, what was the issue of most concern to people in
>> the south - the abstract concept of "states rights", or issues like being
>> scared to death of what might happen if slaves got freed?
>
> Well there was a fair amount of weird talk about how the
> Northerners wanted to force the mixing of the races, but
> the real concern seems to have been simply how to grow
> cotton without slaves.

That economic issue is the one I figured would be the primary concern, along
with scaremongering about what freed slaves might do.

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

Dirk wrote:

> I was thinking of the Mystery Science Theater NG,
> rec.arts.tv.mst3k.misc, which was a source of frivolity some years
> back--I guess I thought you were someone else.

Maybe a couple of times.

--
It Came From Corry Lee Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
 >> Stay informed about: An open letter to David Nieporent 

On Jul 11, 4:01 pm, "Colin William" <colintwill... RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Ron Johnson" <john... RemoveThis @ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote
>
> >> Indeed. To which end, disregarding for a moment what the political
> >> philosophers were saying, what was the issue of most concern to people in
> >> the south - the abstract concept of "states rights", or issues like being
> >> scared to death of what might happen if slaves got freed?
>
> > Well there was a fair amount of weird talk about how the
> > Northerners wanted to force the mixing of the races, but
> > the real concern seems to have been simply how to grow
> > cotton without slaves.
>
> That economic issue is the one I figured would be the primary concern, along
> with scaremongering about what freed slaves might do.

If you're interested in what people were saying _at the time_ I'd
suggest checking out Jim Epperson's site.

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/causes.html

Not only has he collected links to the formal seccession resolutions,
but he's got other interesting quotes. Among them:

Richmond Enquirer, 1856: "Democratic liberty exists solely because we
have
slaves . . . freedom is not possible without slavery."

Atlanta Confederacy, 1860: "We regard every man in our midst an enemy
to
the institutions of the South, who does not boldly declare that he
believes
African slavery to be a social, moral, and political blessing."
(This quote I believe sums up the cause of seccession better than
anything else. The South pulled a collective hissy fit because
a man who did not approve of slavery was elected.)

Lawrence Keitt, Congressman from South Carolina, in a speech to
the House on January 25, 1860: "African slavery is the corner-stone
of the industrial, social, and political fabric of the South; and
whatever wars against it, wars against her very existence. Strike
down the institution of African slavery and you reduce the South
to depopulation and barbarism."

Calhoun (decades before) is the only one arguing on a states
rights basis: "The defence of human liberty against the aggressions
of despotic power have been always the most efficient in States where
domestic slavery was to prevail."

And in the same debate, John Hammond: "the moment this House
undertakes
to legislate upon this subject [slavery], it dissolves the Union.
Should it be my fortune to have a seat upon this floor, I will
abandon
it the instant the first decisive step is taken looking towards
legislation of this subject. I will go home to preach, and if I can,
practice, disunion, and civil war, if needs be. A revolution must
ensue, and this republic sink in blood." (Note that Hammond uses
this type of language only with respect to slavery. He could
accept very different opinions on tarrifs for instance.)
 >> Stay informed about: An open letter to David Nieporent 

> If you're interested in what people were saying _at the time_ I'd
> suggest checking out Jim Epperson's site.
>
> http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/causes.html
>
> Not only has he collected links to the formal seccession resolutions,
> but he's got other interesting quotes. Among them:
>
> Richmond Enquirer, 1856: "Democratic liberty exists solely because we
> have
> slaves . . . freedom is not possible without slavery."
>
> Atlanta Confederacy, 1860: "We regard every man in our midst an enemy
> to
> the institutions of the South, who does not boldly declare that he
> believes
> African slavery to be a social, moral, and political blessing."
> (This quote I believe sums up the cause of seccession better than
> anything else. The South pulled a collective hissy fit because
> a man who did not approve of slavery was elected.)

If this is so, why did only seven states secede before the "firing
upon Ft. Sumter?"

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

"Ron Johnson" <johnson DeleteThis @ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote
> If you're interested in what people were saying _at the time_ I'd
> suggest checking out Jim Epperson's site.

Thanks, ron, interesting stuff.

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