A message to our Leadership in America

[DuncanONeil]

The Civil War was not a single issue conflict. In fact if it was just about slavery, it likely would not have occurred as the North had slaves at the time.

No not at all, the south just wanted to seperate itself from the country they had previously made an oath to abide within (and our constitution btw too) so they could keep their slaves.

Which would have made the whole of Brittan (as well as some other western european counties at the time more than happy since it would open the dooor to their being able to more readily drive a wedge in any united front we may have previously presented against further domination by them perfectly.

Which is why we ratified the constitution to begin with. (Read the Federalist Papers if you dont believe me)

[DuncanONeil]

I seem to recall our founding fathers wanting to make a seperation between church and state.

Not really! The desire was to prevent a reoccurrence of the Church of England. Also to prevent supremacy of a single religion by fiat.

[DuncanONeil]

However the leadership still wishes to "plow ahead". The day after the vote Madame Pelosi said we have heard you and will move forward, but we will move forward. The President still is of a mind to take over this industry.

There's a huge difference between adding to the Constitution with Amendments, and "changing" the Constitution or simply twisting it to fit a particular viewpoint.

Slavery is inhumane, therefore it should be illegal. Alcohol only became illegal after a progressive movement, at which point the government thought they were doing Americans a favor by making it illegal. So the prohibitionists had a field day and it backfired on the government. It caused more problems than it solved. So...they legalized it once again.

Not only did the Constitution work for over 200 years, it created one of the greatest nations on earth.

I am not holding my breath that the election in Massachusetts woke up the Democrats. A few have murmured that "maybe the majority of the people don't want this health care after all". But I for one think it's a ploy to save their seat. I don't think they've changed. They knew a majority didn't want it but they were plowing ahead anyway. Now that they're in danger of being voted out, suddenly they're singing different songs. I don't care for their songs anymore.

[DuncanONeil]

The referenced document at time of its creation was unique. It retained that distinction for a little over 13 years, at which time the French began to develop their own constitution based on ours. It is possible that there now exist a few more documents based on ours, however, I am unable to name any.
It is entirely possible that Japans governing document is very similar, since it authors were not locals.

I'm not altogether sure that the American constitution is what everyone is claiming as the reasoning for why America is as it is. Sure it plays some role in it, but truthfully, it is easy to be pleased with the government when resources are so easily accessible to Americans and things are going so well.

We can be fortunate in America to be having debates of whether all people deserve medical treatment, where as some countries are forced into debates of whether or not to build a hospital with their scare resources.

I feel the resources and economics of America are what make it so great, and less to do with the constitution being that much better than any other democracy/republic.

[DuncanONeil]

"the Southern seccession was very obviously a ploy to overthrow the government of the US by making Lincoln's presidency untenable and returning to the Union under its own terms."

Evidence? Curious.

[denuseri]

The Civil War was not a single issue conflict. In fact if it was just about slavery, it likely would not have occurred as the North had slaves at the time.

Any model that trys to establish a focus for the cuase of the Civil war that doesnt include "slavery" as the primary issue of contention between the North and South is litterally and purposefully (through ignorance or othwerwise) obscure the issue in a retroactive "political correctnes" attempt to make modern day southerners feel ok about themselves for what their ancestors promoted and or side step the ugly truth.

Which is quite unessesary and counter productive to discussion of the events.

No modern day Southerner is alive today that took part in the events. Despite the old adage of a father's sins passing unto the son, there simply is no culpability involved with the issue of slavery for us anymore.

But, that doesnt mean that rasism didnt survive and attempt to thrive. Nor does it excuse those who promote it even to this day.

Just look at the volume of perspectives that history has preserved in letters and newspapers and other writtings the Southerners and Northerners of those times made about it if you need any further conformation. For every individual involved in the war saying that it was not about slavery for them per say, there were a hundred others who say it was.

[denuseri]

Not really! The desire was to prevent a reoccurrence of the Church of England. Also to prevent supremacy of a single religion by fiat.

Well considering that when one carefully studies the various writtings of many of the founding fathers and finds that a lot of them were practicioners of deism, as well as other heritical paths such as apotheoscy like Washington and others (masons and other secret colleges) and wore the matle of the so called "faithful" in their country of origin to hide from persecution; one must also consider that the founding fathers did not wish only to avoid a state controlled religion, but to exclude the state from promoting or having any part whatsoever in religion of any kind.

In the words of ole Tommy J himself:

"No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

Basically:

The First Amendment contains two clauses about the Freedom of Religion. The first part is known as the Establishment Clause, and the second as the Free Exercise Clause.

The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from passing laws that will establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. The courts have interpreted the establishment clause to accomplish the separation of church and state.

The Free Exercise Clause prohibits the government from interfering with a person’s practice of his or her religion. However, religious actions and rituals can be limited by civil and federal laws.

Religious freedom is an absolute right, and includes the right to practice any religion of one’s choice, or no religion at all, and to do this without government control.

[Bren122]

"Sold them a bill of goods"? You consider work hard, save for the future, attend church regularly, and be honest in your dealing with others a "bill of goods"?

Some Baby Boomers have taught this; the ones out of the mainstream. i bet if you look outside your immediate circle or at the mainstream media such notions are derided by the bulk of your contemporaries. I certainly did not learn these things from my parents; my wife did not learn these things from her parents; most of our friends would be the same.
the Bill of Goods i was referring to was the idea that you cannot change the world; your own personal world or the big wide world.

[Bren122]

"the basis or necessity of the right to bare arms has changed again and it needs to be argued in light of that change- but there also has to be a recognition that possessing the means to turn your fellow citizen into gruel because their dog shits on your lawn is not conducive to a peaceful society. i am not arguing against A right to bare arms; just that some arms are not conducive to the proper functioning of a society. trying to defend them puts that right in peril, especially if it does not make a lot of sense."

Then how do you reconcile the fact that states that have authorized an ability for its citizens to carry concealed handguns experience a significant downturn in violent crime?

your post does not make sense in light of the quote; i don't mention conceal and carry laws.

it is this simple- liberals say that all guns are dangerous and they should all be banned.
i am saying that going to the public and saying that no gun should be banned because back in 1870 it was useful on the prairies is to ignore that very few people live on the prairies anymore. what possible reason could there be in an urban or rural environment for a gun with a 30-50 round magazine with a rate of fire in excess of 650 rounds per minute?
the vast majority of the public are all for handguns for self defence and hunting rifles, etc. where you lose them, and worry them, is when you mount a defence for these automatic and semi-automatic military rifles, machine guns and sniper rifles.

[Bren122]

Currently the budget is pushing $2 trillion because the administration has determined that giving monies to their friends is good for the country. It may also be because they believe that all of the country's money belongs to the Government.
How well off do you think you would be if you had the capability of raising the credit limit on your own credit card whenever you chose. It seems that some in Government are desirous of getting more than half of the people receiving their monies from the Government. The Government does have a "social justice" agenda. If you want true "social justice" it needs to come from the people, not from above.

Republicans are just as guilty of pork barrelling and overspending; though i do agree with your critique of the current government.

The Civil War was not in the least bit an attempt to overthrow the Government. Thirteen states decided that their best course of action was to create a new country. They did so. The rest saw that as an insurrection. As for the army remaining true to the Union is patently false. Many of the military leaders in the South were members of the US military that quit the military and went to the south. Some of those were:
Himself a graduate of West Point and a former regular officer, Confederate President Jefferson Davis highly prized these valuable recruits to the cause and saw that former regular officers were given positions of authority and responsibility.[8]

* Richard H. Anderson
* Pierre Beauregard
* Braxton Bragg
* Simon Bolivar Buckner, Sr.
* Samuel Cooper
* Jubal Anderson Early
* Richard Ewell
* Josiah Gorgas
* William Joseph Hardee
* Ambrose Powell Hill
* Daniel Harvey Hill
* John Bell Hood
* Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson
* Albert Sidney Johnston
* Joseph E. Johnston
* Robert E. Lee
* James Longstreet
* Dabney Herndon Maury
* John Hunt Morgan
* John C. Pemberton
* Edmund Kirby Smith
* Gustavus Woodson Smith
* J.E.B. Stuart
* Joseph Wheeler

you are naming individuals, many of whom were not on the active list- Jackson being the most obvious. the United States Army as a whole (or even a majority) did not go over to the other side.

In the US, in spite of the second amendment, there are myriad restrictions on ownership. Your comments imply a belief that proponents of the Second desire unrestricted. Nothig could be further from the truth. Just because we stand by the Second does not mean that reasonable controls, or none, are to be dispensed with. All of the concealed carry states have restrictions on the ability to carry and no one is opposed to those restrictions.

again- i have not mentioned conceal or carry.
but the NRA has been opposed to delays for background checks, background checks, psychological assessments and the banning of weapon types and individual weapons and ammunitions. it has opposed banning armour piercing bullets- the so called "cop killers." this is the number one representative group for gun owners.

Rampage shootings are not an issue of guns, but an issue of people.

This surprises you!?!?!? There are, in total, some 2.9 million in the US military and well over 300 million in the country. So the quote is meaningless!
And a Barrett is now a collectors piece. Its position in the Military has been replaced by newer weapons. To make a point, there is a gentleman relatively near hear that has several tanks and other armored vehicles, According to you I should be in deathly fear of this man.

Oh, incidently, when has there been a "rampage" shooting involving a Barrett

[/QUOTE]

[Bren122]

Any model that trys to establish a focus for the cuase of the Civil war that doesnt include "slavery" as the primary issue of contention between the North and South is litterally and purposefully (through ignorance or othwerwise) obscure the issue in a retroactive "political correctnes" attempt to make modern day southerners feel ok about themselves for what their ancestors promoted and or side step the ugly truth.

Duncan is partially correct; had it been possible for the previous compromises to continue in relation to the admittance of the states on the basis of free and non-free then the war either would have been long delayed or never have taken place. mechanisation of cotton production would have effectively seen slavery die out anyway. it was the unwillingness of the North to change constitutional conditions for state entry that ultimately led to the war. combined with a fear that the industrial strength of the North, already quite pronounced and shortly to become overywhelmingly dominant in the world, made an attempt at secession an increasingly now or never alternative- even 10 years on would have made a big difference in terms of population and economic power. eventually the south was swamped in a war of attrition.
slavery was the major difference between the states; it was slavery that retarded southern economic progress and caused the constitutional crisis. the election of Lincoln was the spark to a volatile situation. while publicly stating he had no intention of legislating an abolition of slavery, as Duncan himself has pointed out in a previous thread, there was no guarantee for the south that he would keep his word when in office.

[Bren122]

"the Southern seccession was very obviously a ploy to overthrow the government of the US by making Lincoln's presidency untenable and returning to the Union under its own terms."

Evidence? Curious.

from the outset, except in radical journals and radical speeches, the aim of the threat of secession was to change the constitutional arrangements for entry of states into the Union so that parts of the south could be used to balance the plains states and keep a balance in the Senate and House. the nomination of Lincoln as Republican candidate against a divided democrat ticket meant that there was a real chance that an abolitionist would sit in the White House. the aim of the threat was maintained, but there was an additional purpose in attempting to keep Lincoln from being elected and, if elected, from being sworn in.
of course the Republicans won the election and Lincoln was sworn in. the delay between the ceremony and the first shot was used to arm the militias of both sides but also to find a compromise that would allow the south to return; it could not return under anything less than a full backdown by the north and this was never an option. the south's retention of slavery relied on a non-abolitionist president and a balance of states as represented in the House and Senate. there was also the issue of the economic and demographic preponderance of the north- as I noted to Denusseri there is a real element of now or never in the writings of the leadership of the south.
because neither side was prepared to back down the war began; but in order for the South to retain slavery for as long as it needed it had to overturn Lincoln's election and change the constitutional basis for statehood. though the attempt failed it was still an attempt to overthrow the US and the presidency.


the main alternative envisaged by elements of the south was an American Empire in Central America and the Carribean with perhaps extensions into South America. just as Texas, California, Arizona and New Mexico were incorporated as conquered lands into the Union it was envisaged that other Mexican states would be included as slave states. of course the north was opposed to this on two fronts- the westward expansion already took up a great deal of energy and resources and the idea of extending slavery to areas where it had been banned. Ironically, the south alone did not have the resources to implement this dream.

[denuseri]

The South, made up many reasons to succeeded from the North, but slavery in and of itself was the primary central motivating factor.

There were fundamental economic, social, and political differences between the two, but again, slavery was the core issue in that it's use made the basis for allmost all of the others.

An example of their different views was the South wanting to become an independent nation. Westward Expansion was a period were people of the 19th Century were bribed with land to move west for future expansion of the new territory the United States had bought. The main reason the South wanted to succeed had to do with the North’s thoughts on slavery.

The only way to have avoided the War was to abolish slavery but this could not be done because slavery is what kept the South running plain and simple.

Slaves were a huge investment to Southerners and if taken away, could mean massive losses to everyone. An example of the use of slavery was in effect when the cotton gin was invented and the demand for slavery doubled. By 1804 seven of the northern states had abolished slavery. During this time there were demands for political equality and economic and social advances. Some of the Northern goals were free public education, better salaries and working conditions for workers, rights for women, and better treatment for criminals. All these views eventually led to an attack on the slavery system in the South.

When new territories became available in the West the South wanted to expand and use slavery in the newly acquired territories, fearing that if it did not, it would loose any numerical advantage it had in votes. The south previously had insisted upon the 2/3's compromise so they could increase their voting power but counting 2/3s of each slave it owned to be cast on its side in any decisions.

Although the North opposed, and wanted to limit slave states in the Union, many Southerners felt that the government dominated by free states could endanger existing slaveholdings.

In 1819 Missouri asked to be admitted to the Union as a slave state even though the North disapproved. Congress soon passed the Missouri Compromise of 1820. This Compromise regulated the extension of slavery in the United States. Meanwhile, Maine also applied acceptance to the Union as a free state. Future states admitted North of 36 degrees 30 minutes North latitude would be free states, and states admitted South of 36 degrees 30 minutes North latitude would be slave states.

In 1848 the Union acquired a piece of land from Mexico. This opened new opportunities for the spread of slavery for Southerners. However, it was disliked because it aided the free farmer much more than the slaveholding plantation owner. Passing the Compromise of 1850 was to solve this problem. This compromise allowed abolition of the slave trade in the District of Columbia and admission of California as a free state. Another part of the compromise was the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, which required the return of runaway slaves to their masters.

This compromise said that the territory east of California given to the United States by Mexico was divided into the territories of New Mexico and Utah, and they were opened to settlement by both slaveholders and antislavery settlers. The results reflected great hostility between the slave and free states.

In 1854 the Kansas-Nebraska Act was passed. It was introduced by Stephen Douglas, and it stated that the two states vote for themselves on the issue of slavery. A conflict developed in Kansas between pro-slavery settlers from Missouri and antislavery newcomers who began to move into the territory from the northeastern states. This was known as “Bleeding Kansas.”

The abolitionists played a major role in shaping the views of many Northerners as well as the formation of the Republican Party. (Ironic how the Republicans allowed Hubert Humphry to steal the promotion of an equal rights agenda as its new minority platform just days before they themselves had been planing to announce its addition to their own in 1948, which only made sence since the Republicans had been the party to free the slaves to begin with.)

These people were fully against slavery and its expansion and most of the time took matters into their own hands to get their point across.

The last main conflict that led to succession was during the presidential election of 1860. Nominated was Abraham Lincoln a Republican, who said many times he didnt wish to force the abolisanist agenda on the south in an attempt to aleviate potential voter's in those regions fears. (Funny how most southern states refused to even put him on thier ballots anyway)

Now with Lincoln being elected the South really felt that expansion was being threatened, and because expansion was vital to the survival of slavery they also felt their way of life was being threatened.

Lincoln said that succession was illegal and said that he intended to maintain federal possessions in the South. He also said many times when speaking to his own base in his party how the condition of slavery was not acceptable in any civilized society.

Initially, Lincoln expected to bring about the eventual extinction of slavery by stopping its further expansion into any U.S. territory, and by offering compensated emancipation (an offer accepted only by Washington, D.C). Lincoln stood by the Republican Party platform in 1860, which stated that slavery should not be allowed to expand into any more territories. Most Americans agreed that if all future states admitted to the Union were to be free states, that slavery would eventually be abolished. Lincoln saw the Kansas issue as a repeal of the 1820 Missouri Compromise which had outlawed slavery above the 36-30' parallel.

Southerners hoped the threat of succession would force acceptance of Southern demands, but it didn’t. South Carolina was the first to adopt an ordinance of succession and after that many other states followed. This achievement outraged the North, which caused the the Civil War. The first shots of which were fired upon the North by the South at Fort Sumpter in SC when they wouldn't surrender the garrison there. Blood had been spilled.

The existence of slavery was the central element of the conflict between the North and South. Other problems existed that led to succession but none were as big as the slavery issue. The only way to avoid the war was to abolish slavery totally although the South depended on slaves a great deal; creating a unescapable paradox. Technological progressions did nothing to stop the Southerners reliance on slavery before, if anything it promoted it and nothing sugested that they would wish to abolish it in the South at some as for unseen magical date. Really there were no ways of avoiding a conflict other than the South adhearing to the Constitution (which it chose to disregard) because the North and South had opposite views of slavery.

In some places in the south, despite the war and the constitution, a state of peonage was even enforced by white southerners on blacks in some communities that extended well in to 20th century.

[steelish]

I'm not altogether sure that the American constitution is what everyone is claiming as the reasoning for why America is as it is.

The American Constitution is EXACTLY the reason why America became such a great and powerful nation.

Excerpt from The 5000 Year Leap;

The Constitution [Benjamin] Franklin and his friends gave to us resulted in the greatest nation in history. With the adoption of our Constitution our nation became a nation based on law, the Constitution being the supreme law of the land. A quick review of our history as a nation certainly supports Franklin's observation that our nation represented a rising sun. Consider, for instance, that the United States represents approximately 5% of the world's population but has created more new wealth than all the rest of the world combined. Moreover, during this time period we have never suffered a famine, this in spite of the fact that even today famines continue to stalk the world over. Throughout the ages humans have gone hungry and many have starved, in spite of their fertile land and the manpower to work it. "The ancient Assyrians, Persians, Egyptians, and Greeks were intelligent people, but in spite of their intelligence they were never able to get enough to eat. They often killed their babies because they couldn't feed them. the Roman Empire collapsed in famine." For more than a hundred years the United States has been the food basket of the world.
During the past two hundred years the United States has outdistanced the world in extending the benefits of inventions and discoveries to the vast majority of its people in such fields as medicine, housing, education, power-energy, transportation, space, aircraft, and agriculture. Furthermore, Americans have been responsible for more discoveries and inventions in science and elsewhere than any nation on earth. It's young men and women have fought in wars throughout the world in defense of freedom, asking nothing for their efforts and sacrificing their lives in return. The U.S. is always the first nation to provide relief and aid to other nations that have had natural calamities, sometimes even providing aid to our enemies. We have given more dollars in aid and relief than most other nations combined. In spite of our largess we are the target of the hate and envy of the rest of the world.

[Energizer]

That quote din't say anything about how the constitution did, well, anything frankly.

All it did was state that there were now laws (which I'm not sure is any different than any other countries), and the proceeded by going on about how good America is economically.

[steelish]

That quote din't say anything about how the constitution did, well, anything frankly.

All it did was state that there were now laws (which I'm not sure is any different than any other countries), and the proceeded by going on about how good America is economically.

The excerpt (not quote) stated how much of a change in the world the United States brought about. Do you think the U.S. would have been able to wrought such change in the world had it still been under sovereign rule?

The constitution limited and defined the powers of the American Government, and gave the U.S. a balanced form of government. Rather than having a ruler's law, where there is tyranny...or a no law, where there is total anarchy, the founders placed the U.S. government directly in the middle. We have people's law, where most of the power is to reside with the individual, family, municipality/community and then moves on up to the state then finally with the federal.

We were formed as a Republic by our founders. A democracy becomes increasingly unwieldy and inefficient as the population grows. A republic, on the other hand, governs through elected representatives and can be expanded indefinitely. James Madison in the Federalist Papers, (No. 14, p. 100.) explained it thus;

In a democracy the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A democracy, consequently, must be confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a large region.

Equal rights, not equal things! The founders recognized that the people cannot delegate to their government the power to do anything except that which they have the lawful right to do themselves. For example; every person is entitled to protection of his life and property. Therefore it is perfectly legitimate to delegate to the government the task of setting up a police force to protect the lives and property of all the people. But suppose a kind-hearted man saw that one of his neighbors had two cars while another neighbor had none. What would happen if, in the spirit of benevolence, the kind man went over and took one of the cars from his prosperous neighbor and generously gave it to the neighbor in need? Obviously, he would be arrested for car theft. No matter how kind his intentions, he is guilty of flagrantly violating the natural rights of his prosperous neighbor, who is entitled to be protected in his property. Of course, the two-car neighbor could donate a car to his poor neighbor, if he liked, but that is his decision and not the prerogative of the kind-hearted neighbor who wants to play Robin Hood.
Now, suppose that kind-hearted man decided to ask the mayor and city council to force the man with two cars to give one to his pedestrian neighbor. Does that make it any more legitimate? Obviously, this makes it even worse because if the mayor and city council do it in the name of the law, the man who has lost his car has not only lost the rights to his property, but (since it is the "law") he has lost all right to appeal for help in protecting his property.
The reason I bring this up is because the equal rights doctrine protects the freedom to prosper...and this is what the constitution did for America.

There is more I could type, but suffice it to say that I recommend reading The 5000 Year Leap. It touches on almost every argument that has been leveled against the U.S. and it's founders in this thread. The book addresses welfare, it addresses religion and men's/women's rights in the bible. It touches on "re-distribution" of wealth, and explains the pitfalls of such...in logical terms anyone could easily understand.

The founders lived under tyranny. They lived under sovereign rule. They are the ones who designed this nation to (hopefully) avoid reverting back to such a tyrannical state. Read the book and you will understand the minute ways that the U.S. has been changing in the past 80 years (and much more swiftly recently) towards a nation the founders were trying to avoid.

[DuncanONeil]

I never said it was not about slavery! I said the war was not a single issue event.
Ask most anyone what the Civil War was about and the answer you get is "slavery". On the face of it that can not be the raison d'être for the war. Else there would be no slaves in the North. As there were something else had to be the primary impetus for the war. Note I said primary!

Any model that trys to establish a focus for the cuase of the Civil war that doesnt include "slavery" as the primary issue of contention between the North and South is litterally and purposefully (through ignorance or othwerwise) obscure the issue in a retroactive "political correctnes" attempt to make modern day southerners feel ok about themselves for what their ancestors promoted and or side step the ugly truth.

Which is quite unessesary and counter productive to discussion of the events.

No modern day Southerner is alive today that took part in the events. Despite the old adage of a father's sins passing unto the son, there simply is no culpability involved with the issue of slavery for us anymore.

But, that doesnt mean that rasism didnt survive and attempt to thrive. Nor does it excuse those who promote it even to this day.

Just look at the volume of perspectives that history has preserved in letters and newspapers and other writtings the Southerners and Northerners of those times made about it if you need any further conformation. For every individual involved in the war saying that it was not about slavery for them per say, there were a hundred others who say it was.

[DuncanONeil]

"In the words of ole Tommy J himself:

'No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.'"

Your quote sounds an awful lot like the first amendment! As for the focus of you message, that is exactly what I say!
I go a bit further though. Court decisions restricting exposure of the citizenry to anything deemed to be a religious icon, usually of one category of religion, are in fact in violation of the Constitution. A violation of the free expression clause.

[DuncanONeil]

I think I might be inclined to say, on the basis of your response, that your circle may be a bit restrictive.
I have been hearing from the news lately that the "current" generation may be the first that can expect to not "do better" than their parents. What you are saying is that this was the common belief beginning in the middle to late 60s. That period in the nation, if not the world, was encompassed by a concerted effort to improve everything!
Yet you feel that the lessons were "why bother we can't effect any change." Had changes not occurred we would not have the President we have.

Some Baby Boomers have taught this; the ones out of the mainstream. i bet if you look outside your immediate circle or at the mainstream media such notions are derided by the bulk of your contemporaries. I certainly did not learn these things from my parents; my wife did not learn these things from her parents; most of our friends would be the same.
the Bill of Goods i was referring to was the idea that you cannot change the world; your own personal world or the big wide world.

[DuncanONeil]

No you did not I did. However, the focus and tenor of your recent messages has been that having weapons available and ready was the major contributing factor in wide spread violence. My making the jump to CCW, with its concomitant reduction in violent crime is more appropriate than your jumping back to either the founding or the expansion and attesting that those conditions do not exist and therefore the need for firearms does not exist.
Why is there a need in a modern city for firearms, some cities (some portions of others) have the same reputation as Dodge city did before the arrival of Wyatt and his brothers. I do not know how big that town was but it is not unreasonable to understand that you could get from one side to the other in a short period of time. I live in a place with some 600,000 people, 97 square miles of ground, and only a bit over 600 cops on duty at a given time, with less on the street. In certain parts of town you could be beaten to death before the cops get there. Yet you seem to wish to insist that that is my best option.
You also try to base a complete ban on firearms on a single category. The is a word for that tactic. To use such to get someone to agree and then postulate that into a general dismissal of all firearms is not a valid argument.

your post does not make sense in light of the quote; i don't mention conceal and carry laws.

it is this simple- liberals say that all guns are dangerous and they should all be banned.
i am saying that going to the public and saying that no gun should be banned because back in 1870 it was useful on the prairies is to ignore that very few people live on the prairies anymore. what possible reason could there be in an urban or rural environment for a gun with a 30-50 round magazine with a rate of fire in excess of 650 rounds per minute?
the vast majority of the public are all for handguns for self defence and hunting rifles, etc. where you lose them, and worry them, is when you mount a defence for these automatic and semi-automatic military rifles, machine guns and sniper rifles.

[DuncanONeil]

Republicans are just as guilty of pork barrelling and overspending; though i do agree with your critique of the current government.

And I am in favor of firing all 535 of them! Although I may make an exception for Liberman.

you are naming individuals, many of whom were not on the active list- Jackson being the most obvious. the United States Army as a whole (or even a majority) did not go over to the other side.

I was unhappy with the listing for two reasons, one being it was indentified as "some", and had no specific info on each. They were meant to be examples. But without further research I find your rebuttal less than satisfying.

again- i have not mentioned conceal or carry.
but the NRA has been opposed to delays for background checks, background checks, psychological assessments and the banning of weapon types and individual weapons and ammunitions. it has opposed banning armour piercing bullets- the so called "cop killers." this is the number one representative group for gun owners.

The NRA does not oppose background checks.
There is no opposition to "armor piercing" bullets being banned, to civilians. There is an objection to the change being sought that will identify nearly all rifle ammunition as "armor piercing". "(A)mending the federal “armor piercing ammunition” law, which currently restricts bullets made with certain metals and jacket constructions designed to penetrate protective vests worn by law enforcement officers. The change, supported by Sen. Obama, would ban any bullet that can be used in a handgun and that can penetrate the least protective vest worn by law enforcement officers." Clearly intended as an end around.
As for the "psychological assessments" Such a person would fail the background check.
Why are you so concerned about the mere mention of CCW? Data shows that in the places this is law has reduced crime!

[DuncanONeil]

slavery was the major difference between the states; it was slavery that retarded southern economic progress and caused the constitutional crisis.

Actually I would say the major difference between the North and the South was Agriculture vs Manufacturing, as you stated earlier. The fact that the South was almost totally agrarian did place them at a serious disadvantage in a war.

[DuncanONeil]

Some of that was not covered in classes I took.
But the summary does make a stronger case that the prime issue of the war was States Rights.
If you consider the attempt to unseat Lincoln an attempt to "overthrow ... the presidency. Can not be said of the actions of those in Florida in 2000? Just an aside.
I am not so certain that it was the issue of slavery that drove the South. Though the existence of slavery was a large factor in the nature of the Southern economy. With the tech available and the size of the work force paying wages must have been seen as a "death knell" for the entire economy of those states.
Oh yes, while slaves did exist in the North the vast majority were in the South. So in some respects the argument about slavery was Pot/Kettle.

from the outset, except in radical journals and radical speeches, the aim of the threat of secession was to change the constitutional arrangements for entry of states into the Union so that parts of the south could be used to balance the plains states and keep a balance in the Senate and House. the nomination of Lincoln as Republican candidate against a divided democrat ticket meant that there was a real chance that an abolitionist would sit in the White House. the aim of the threat was maintained, but there was an additional purpose in attempting to keep Lincoln from being elected and, if elected, from being sworn in.
of course the Republicans won the election and Lincoln was sworn in. the delay between the ceremony and the first shot was used to arm the militias of both sides but also to find a compromise that would allow the south to return; it could not return under anything less than a full backdown by the north and this was never an option. the south's retention of slavery relied on a non-abolitionist president and a balance of states as represented in the House and Senate. there was also the issue of the economic and demographic preponderance of the north- as I noted to Denusseri there is a real element of now or never in the writings of the leadership of the south.
because neither side was prepared to back down the war began; but in order for the South to retain slavery for as long as it needed it had to overturn Lincoln's election and change the constitutional basis for statehood. though the attempt failed it was still an attempt to overthrow the US and the presidency.


the main alternative envisaged by elements of the south was an American Empire in Central America and the Carribean with perhaps extensions into South America. just as Texas, California, Arizona and New Mexico were incorporated as conquered lands into the Union it was envisaged that other Mexican states would be included as slave states. of course the north was opposed to this on two fronts- the westward expansion already took up a great deal of energy and resources and the idea of extending slavery to areas where it had been banned. Ironically, the south alone did not have the resources to implement this dream.

[DuncanONeil]

"The Constitution [Benjamin] Franklin and his friends gave to us resulted in the greatest nation in history. With the adoption of our Constitution our nation became a nation based on law, the Constitution being the supreme law of the land. A quick review of our history as a nation certainly supports Franklin's observation that our nation represented a rising sun. Consider, for instance, that the United States represents approximately 5% of the world's population but has created more new wealth than all the rest of the world combined."

Just a little tidbit gleaned from the History Channel.
"At the start of the Revolution Americans has the highest standard of living and the lowest taxes in the Western World.

[DuncanONeil]

That quote din't say anything about how the constitution did, well, anything frankly.

All it did was state that there were now laws (which I'm not sure is any different than any other countries), and the proceeded by going on about how good America is economically.

"the Constitution being the supreme law of the land."

[denuseri]

Duncan all I can say to you about is this:

"If you remove slavery from the equation, you have no Civil War, becuase there is nothing left for them to fight over that would lead to a Civil War."


But alltough its been an interesting side bar, it really has little to do with the topic of the thread, other than to point out the pitfalls and extremes those who tie their wellfare soley upon greed at the expense of one's fellow man can drive a population to do when its the main motivating factor in opposition to ones government.

Or are you sugesting that we the people should follow in the path of the South and rebel becuase we are not happy with our current political leadership? (You know, the topic of this thread)

Should we really go down that road?

Havent we allready fought that fight?

Wouldn't it be better if we instead worked to remove every incumbant politican from office at the poles instead?

Have you lost faith in our Constitution?