Obama on Memorial Day

[JAAgan]

Now that I know you are a history professor......
This gets more interesting FOR ME.

Consider the following......
Not only did ALL of the citizens of ALL the United States PAY for Fort Sumter as you have stated......
(BTW...... America did not have "50 states" at this historical moment in our history.)
The citizens of South Carolina......
And ALL the citizens of ALL the other seceding Southern States, had ALSO PAID FOR West Piont, and ALL the other FEDERAL FORTS and military installations/property throughout ALL of the United States prior to their CSA secession.
ERGO......
I fail to understand how any rational American could conclude that SOME of ALL such such property should not logically belong to the citizens of South Carolina......
And the citizens of EVERY other CSA State.

The FACT that South Carolinians preferred to settle for the DEED to Fort Sumter, rather than a full or partial ownership of West Point, seems to me to be a REASONABLE claim in any such contested States' Rights property settlement.
________________________________________________

ALSO for your consideration......
I submit the following.

Despite the POPPYCOCK PRETENSE of our current federal politicians that THEY OWN vast valuable portions of America......
The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT actually OWNS NOTHING!
They do not OWN the White House, or so much as a TOILET in the congessional office building.
The FEDS OWN NOTHING because ALL THE GOOD STUFF THEY PRETEND THEY OWN is actually the LEGAL PROPERTY of ALL of America's COMMON CITIZENS.

Once upon a time......
KINGS and other ROYAL THIEVES claimed OWNERSHIP of everything they could claw at and control with their ABSOLUTE GREED!
The liberty seeking lads whom we Americans commonly refer to as our FOUNDING FATHERS fought an odds against victory war to CHANGE past centuries of this banal blight on human history.
____________________________________________

So JAAgan......
1) How many military FORTS and other FEDERAL "property" had the collective citizens of America PAID FOR prior the CITIZENS of the Confederate States Of America excercising their secession option?
2) How many STATES were legal members of this eclusive DEMOCRATIC club prior to the first CSA claim on Fort Sumter?
DIVIDE #1 by #2......
And YOU tell Me what South Carolina should have REASONABLY expected from any pompous FEDERAL falderol, or their collective STATE PEER bretheren to the NORTH.

I eagerly await your History Expert reply/comments.

Cheers and good night.

Got me on the fifty states, I'll try to improve my replying skills.

I don't agree with your theory that the collective property of the people of the United States is not also the property of the legally elected government. I think that goes beyond the ideas of the Founding Fathers. They did eventually decide they had to form a national government stronger than the Confederation. The theory behind the Constitution is that the people created the government, and there were things that government would own.

With that in mind, as to your questions:

1) I don't know the answer to your first question. However many there were, you believe they were equally owned by all the people. I believe they were owned by the Federal Government, which the people controlled through their elected delegates and the states controlled through the Senate and the President.

2) To my way of thinking the South Carolina never had a legal claim on Fort Sumter. Since the duly elected Federal Government was operating under the doctrine that Secession was not legal, South Carolina had no expectations. (Clearly, under your view, the CSA government had no claim, either so we will have to eliminate them. My question to you would be -- how much of the Fort Sumter should the other 6 members of the Confederacy at the time of Sumter have expected. An equal share -- a share based on population?) Even if one accepts the concept that the Union was a club which members could leave at will, there was no explicit guarantee that a member who left would receive any of the commonly shared property. Particularly when the majority of the members of the club had just voted for candidates who favored retaining the Union without secession (Lincoln, Douglas and Bell).

[Spinoza]

I agree that the conflict was inevitable. There's a quote in the Ken Burns Civil War series that is focused on slavery, but I think it is very true if you apply it to the entire spectrum of sectional differences. The gist is that that split between North and South was a snake sleeping under the table from the start at Philadelphia. Through the years at various times is was disturbed but it was only a matter of time before it awoke and had to be dealt with.

I like Shelby Foote's quote in the same sequence -- although it won't sit well with those of you who universally hold principles above compromise -- where he says the Civil War was our greatest failure, because the true genius of our nation was our ability to compromise to make the nation work. He mentions all the various compromises that were crafted during the Constitutional Convention, and says neither side would budge to compromise over the issues that led to war.

"Although it won't sit well with THOSE OF YOU who universally hold principles ABOVE compromise"......
IMPLIES per your context that YOU do not share or practice or promote this alleged human frailty.

Let's see if this is indeed FACT, or merely subjective FANTASY.

If America's FEDERAL POWER legislated/voted TOMORROW that it was NECESSARY for America's "national security" to curtail the standing FREE SPEECH RIGHT of EVERY American citizen......
OR denied EVERY private American citizen TOMORROW the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS......
OR declared Islam TOMORROW to be America's only recognized religion......
OR banned the FREE PRESS RIGHT of either CNN or Fox News TOMORROW......
OR gave Obama the power TOMORROW to expand the Supreme Court to 15 judges......

Would you be one of THOSE to "universally hold principles above compromise"?
Or would YOU be willing to COMPROMISE and settle for......
Curtailing only HALF of America's FREE SPEECH......
Banning only HALF of the guns owned by private American citizens......
Recognizing only HALF of the current religions practiced in America......
Banning only CNN but not FOX, or only FOX but not CNN......
And empowering Obama to appoint THREE new SUPREME judges, but not SIX?

IMNHO......
COMPROMISE is a rational instinct for EVERY logical man who has the education and the ability to excercise his little grey cells in a reasoned manner.

BUT......
Does not EVERY rational, logical, educated or uneducated, reasonable, honest and sincere man have the RIGHT to cherish certain subjective principles......
Or at least ONE subjective principle......
That he may deem to be SANCROSANCT, and UNWORTHY of any contaminating
COMPROMISE?

Burns was right IMNHO when he pointed out the coiled snake under the table that was myopically ignored in Philadelpia.

But Foote was wrong IMNHO when he states that the "true genius of our nation was our ability to compromise and make the nation work".

The "true genius" of America was its UNIQUE attempt for a reliance on PRINCIPLES!
It was the expediant COMPROMISES in Philadelphia that sewed the seeds of our Civil War.

As I await your reply......
I shall next move to your last post on this thread......
And all the echoes of an American flag that now waves from 50 states in UNION with FEDERAL POWER.

But not tonight.
Cheers until later.

[JAAgan]

"Although it won't sit well with THOSE OF YOU who universally hold principles ABOVE compromise"......
IMPLIES per your context that YOU do not share or practice or promote this alleged human frailty.

Let's see if this is indeed FACT, or merely subjective FANTASY.

If America's FEDERAL POWER legislated/voted TOMORROW that it was NECESSARY for America's "national security" to curtail the standing FREE SPEECH RIGHT of EVERY American citizen......
OR denied EVERY private American citizen TOMORROW the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS......
OR declared Islam TOMORROW to be America's only recognized religion......
OR banned the FREE PRESS RIGHT of either CNN or Fox News TOMORROW......
OR gave Obama the power TOMORROW to expand the Supreme Court to 15 judges......

Would you be one of THOSE to "universally hold principles above compromise"?
Or would YOU be willing to COMPROMISE and settle for......
Curtailing only HALF of America's FREE SPEECH......
Banning only HALF of the guns owned by private American citizens......
Recognizing only HALF of the current religions practiced in America......
Banning only CNN but not FOX, or only FOX but not CNN......
And empowering Obama to appoint THREE new SUPREME judges, but not SIX?

IMNHO......
COMPROMISE is a rational instinct for EVERY logical man who has the education and the ability to excercise his little grey cells in a reasoned manner.

BUT......
Does not EVERY rational, logical, educated or uneducated, reasonable, honest and sincere man have the RIGHT to cherish certain subjective principles......
Or at least ONE subjective principle......
That he may deem to be SANCROSANCT, and UNWORTHY of any contaminating
COMPROMISE?

Burns was right IMNHO when he pointed out the coiled snake under the table that was myopically ignored in Philadelpia.

But Foote was wrong IMNHO when he states that the "true genius of our nation was our ability to compromise and make the nation work".

The "true genius" of America was its UNIQUE attempt for a reliance on PRINCIPLES!
It was the expediant COMPROMISES in Philadelphia that sewed the seeds of our Civil War.

As I await your reply......
I shall next move your last post on this thread......
And all the echoes of an American flag that now waves from 50 states in UNION with FEDERAL POWER.

But not tonight.
Cheers until later.

Of course certain key principles are above compromise and in a situation where two extreme choices are the only alternatives compromise won't work.

The slavery issue as of 1861 -- which was the main driving issue -- was by no means an all or nothing situation. Only the extreme radical wing of the Republican Party had plans for immediate forced emancipation of slaves in the South and that wing had been defeated when Lincoln won the nomination for President. In fact, it is not clear that the mainstream of the Republican Party had plans to ever force emancipation. Most people believed -- as they delegates in Philadelphia had believed, prior to the cotton gin -- that slavery would die a death at its own hands, economically. So, when you read those statements from the Southern governments saying they left to protect slavery. There was no imminent threat.

In fact, the Republican Party had didn't have a two-thirds majority to amend the Constitution to abolish slavery and the Democrats actually had a majority in the Senate -- although that included a few Northern Democrats who would have voted for an abolition amendment. Any amendment to abolish slavery would have been several years from possible approval, if the Southern delegates had not vacated Congress when they declared secession.

Beyond that, at the time the war started there were 34 states in the Union. Fourteen of those were slave holding states, in which the voters or legislature would never have ratified such an amendment. In fact, even with our 50 states of today (see I'm getting better), 14 hold out states can keep an amendment from becoming law (check out the most recent version of the ERA).

There was abundant time to negotiate and use leverage, particularly by the other Southern states after South Carolina seceded in December 1860. As was said on this thread, Lincoln had clearly stated his goal was to preserve the Union, slavery still wasn't a front-burner issue in the North. And certainly, the other States Rights issues were certainly not pressing. In reality, the last pre-war tariff passed in Congress had dropped rates (leaving aside the issue of all the former Whig Louisiana sugar planters who were so strongly pro-tariff).

As for your take on compromise, with all due respect, I don't know how anyone can look at the process that produced our Constitution and the story of our nation's history to see that our ability to bring people of vastly different viewpoints and heritages together and craft a solution is our greatest strength. There have been so many countries who held to concrete unyielding principles -- some of which we consider evil -- that did not survive because they failed to budge.

I will concede it does come down to your own interpretation of which rights and/or principles are too sacred to compromise. But I still don't see how a rational person looking back cannot see that the leaders of the South made a huge blunder. There is no way on earth the slaves in the South would have been free by the summer of 1865 and the Southern economy destroyed, other than the path they chose. Clearly, we can't strongly attack them, from our advantageous future position, decision are made on the spot, not in hindsight. But they picked the single worst alternative available to them and to the people of the South (based on Reconstruction that is ALL people of the South, black or white, slave or free.)

[Spinoza]

Got me on the fifty states, I'll try to improve my replying skills.

When I opted to pull your learned leg......
Regarding your 50 states comment in post 110, I did so knowing full well it was but a slip of the tongue/keyboard finger on your part.

But last night while drinking many bottles of beer as usual, I decided to return to this possible 50 state "Freudian female undergarment" for cause.
And despite the fact that you appear to have somewhat anticipated me in your missive last night...... I shall proceed for ANY OTHERS who may be reading but not participating in our friendly exchanges.
I'll try to keep it succinct.

One of the problems with trying to UNDERSTAND HISTORY is being too far removed from the actual human beings who subjectively participated in the involved event(s).
It is no easy task for any contemporary American to THINK in terms of LESS than "50 states"......
Or IMAGINE a political reality when FEDERAL POWER did not so thoroughly DOMINATE States' Rights......
Or REALIZE that antebellum America was a strikingly different world than any world any living American has ever known and experienced.

That said......
This fog that came in on little cat's feet, shall now move on.

Cheers.

[Spinoza]

Of course certain key principles are above compromise and in a situation where two extreme choices are the only alternatives compromise won't work.

The slavery issue as of 1861 -- which was the main driving issue -- was by no means an all or nothing situation. Only the extreme radical wing of the Republican Party had plans for immediate forced emancipation of slaves in the South and that wing had been defeated when Lincoln won the nomination for President. In fact, it is not clear that the mainstream of the Republican Party had plans to ever force emancipation. Most people believed -- as they delegates in Philadelphia had believed, prior to the cotton gin -- that slavery would die a death at its own hands, economically. So, when you read those statements from the Southern governments saying they left to protect slavery. There was no imminent threat.

In fact, the Republican Party had didn't have a two-thirds majority to amend the Constitution to abolish slavery and the Democrats actually had a majority in the Senate -- although that included a few Northern Democrats who would have voted for an abolition amendment. Any amendment to abolish slavery would have been several years from possible approval, if the Southern delegates had not vacated Congress when they declared secession.

Beyond that, at the time the war started there were 34 states in the Union. Fourteen of those were slave holding states, in which the voters or legislature would never have ratified such an amendment. In fact, even with our 50 states of today (see I'm getting better), 14 hold out states can keep an amendment from becoming law (check out the most recent version of the ERA).

There was abundant time to negotiate and use leverage, particularly by the other Southern states after South Carolina seceded in December 1860. As was said on this thread, Lincoln had clearly stated his goal was to preserve the Union, slavery still wasn't a front-burner issue in the North. And certainly, the other States Rights issues were certainly not pressing. In reality, the last pre-war tariff passed in Congress had dropped rates (leaving aside the issue of all the former Whig Louisiana sugar planters who were so strongly pro-tariff).

As for your take on compromise, with all due respect, I don't know how anyone can look at the process that produced our Constitution and the story of our nation's history to see that our ability to bring people of vastly different viewpoints and heritages together and craft a solution is our greatest strength. There have been so many countries who held to concrete unyielding principles -- some of which we consider evil -- that did not survive because they failed to budge.

I will concede it does come down to your own interpretation of which rights and/or principles are too sacred to compromise. But I still don't see how a rational person looking back cannot see that the leaders of the South made a huge blunder. There is no way on earth the slaves in the South would have been free by the summer of 1865 and the Southern economy destroyed, other than the path they chose. Clearly, we can't strongly attack them, from our advantageous future position, decision are made on the spot, not in hindsight. But they picked the single worst alternative available to them and to the people of the South (based on Reconstruction that is ALL people of the South, black or white, slave or free.)

There is nothing of any significance......
In the first 5 paragraphs of your above post that I would disagree with......
If "the slavery issue as of 1861... was the main driving force" of secession and the resulting Civil War.

But was SLAVERY actually THE ISSUE......
Or merely a symptom in an ECONOMIC reality that rekindled STATES' RIGHTS embers that had never been thoroughly consumed, despite a systematic FEDERAL effort to pretend to be Smokey Bear whenever rain appeared to be scarce?

As we both know, I presume......
Civil War scholars have been debating the CAUSE(S) of the Civil War without arriving at any CERTAIN consenus for more than 140 delving American years.
And I'll bet a beer that neither you, the history professional......
Nor I, the curious history buff......
Will untangle this riddle despite any best effort to do so.

Ergo......
I shall SUBJECTIVELY remain in the STATES' RIGHTS Confederate camp until effectively bayonetted from any such biased bivouac......
And I shall explain WHY if needed.

Cheers.

[Spinoza]

As for your take on compromise, with all due respect, I don't know how anyone can look at the process that produced our Constitution and the story of our nation's history to see that our ability to bring people of vastly different viewpoints and heritages together and craft a solution is our greatest strength. There have been so many countries who held to concrete unyielding principles -- some of which we consider evil -- that did not survive because they failed to budge.

I will concede it does come down to your own interpretation of which rights and/or principles are too sacred to compromise. But I still don't see how a rational person looking back cannot see that the leaders of the South made a huge blunder. There is no way on earth the slaves in the South would have been free by the summer of 1865 and the Southern economy destroyed, other than the path they chose. Clearly, we can't strongly attack them, from our advantageous future position, decision are made on the spot, not in hindsight. But they picked the single worst alternative available to them and to the people of the South (based on Reconstruction that is ALL people of the South, black or white, slave or free.)

IMNHO......
COMPROMISE is, and always has been, a TRUE barometer of the intelligence of man......
Unless PRINCIPLES are pragmatically sacrificed in a process that pretends political alchemy may actually produce any golden utopia.
________________________________________

Your last paragraph......
Again assumes SLAVERY!

But consider the following.
Whether the CSA won or lost their SECESSION WAR, SLAVERY in America was already doomed to eventual failure, per economic rather than moral values.

However......
Had the CSA won a WAR they could have won with only a few fateful tactical twists at Gettysburg......
What might that have WRITTEN in America's subsequent history of FEDERAL POWER v. STATES' RIGHTS?

Cheers and good night

[Spinoza]

123 and 1222......
Just curious! :icon_wink:

Bon soir.

[buck_dawg_gold]

Long before the Civil War......
True American soldiers "took up arms and used them against their brothers in war"......
To fight for the personal FREEDOM that America once represented on an otherwise oppressive and appaulingly primative planet.
Or have you forgotten that America's Revolutionary War also pitted brother against brother, and family against family in an effort to CREATE A LAND OF LIBERTY, and SCULPT a model of HUMAN DIGNITY that any such effort NEEDS for survival.

Do you BELIEVE......
That America's FOUNDING FATHERS, and all who followed them, RISKED ALL to rid themselves of ROYAL LORDS......
Only to leave a legacy for their decendants that would DEMAND bending and bowing before FEDERAL LORDS?
_____________________________________________

As for your "Republicans and Democrats"......
I doubt that any such SHEERED AND SIMPLEMINDED SHEEP would "battle to the death" in defense of ANY constitutional principle.
"Republicans and Democrats" no longer do much more than than parade PARTY politics and promote/promise pursuasive poppycock.
"Republicans and Democrats" have banaly become contemporary versions of the lackey LOYALISTS who once drank toasts to King George with timid thoughts, while others dreamed of democracy and dignity.

Cheers and good night.

Can you really compare the American Revolution to the Civil War? No. There is one huge difference btw these two wars that you are forgetting. The Americans you speak of left England to find riches and to free themselves from Fornication Under Counsel of the King… Once they left England you could say they left the rule of England and the monarch. One of the major issues that led to the Revolutionary war was taxation without representation. Now FastForward to the Civil War… People from the east coast migrated south. However the population diff btw the two regions were still great. Yet per the populations of the two regions representation was equal…

Unlike the America England conflict the south and north were one nation under God that decided to abide by the Governing Law set forth by the US Constitution. The South agreed to these laws. The north had a competitive advantage in the fact that the larger east population gave them more political muscle….however the south was aware of this before they signed up to play this one nation game. These patriots of freedom you speak of seem more like spoiled brats who tried to take the “ball” home because they got mad that they were loosing the political game….

I was on vacation....

[FishingBack]

Can you really compare the American Revolution to the Civil War? No. There is one huge difference btw these two wars that you are forgetting. The Americans you speak of left England to find riches and to free themselves from Fornication Under Counsel of the King… Once they left England you could say they left the rule of England and the monarch. One of the major issues that led to the Revolutionary war was taxation without representation. Now FastForward to the Civil War… People from the east coast migrated south. However the population diff btw the two regions were still great. Yet per the populations of the two regions representation was equal…

Unlike the America England conflict the south and north were one nation under God that decided to abide by the Governing Law set forth by the US Constitution. The South agreed to these laws. The north had a competitive advantage in the fact that the larger east population gave them more political muscle….however the south was aware of this before they signed up to play this one nation game. These patriots of freedom you speak of seem more like spoiled brats who tried to take the “ball” home because they got mad that they were loosing the political game….

I was on vacation....

Seems like a well-biased and emotional response.

(If it were absolute, there'd have been no war.)