| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Joseph H" |
| Date: |
27 Oct 2005 04:27:16 PM |
| Object: |
The Lineaments of Existence |
Energy exists, Is energy eternal? I don't know - though I like the
phrase. I don't see how energy could have emerged: emerged from what?
It begets matter. I don't know how. The E=MC thing always seems too
pat. Can the creation of matter really be that precise?
On at least one occasion matter spools out to produce the thing we call
universe. Over time this matter condenses or coalesces into planets
etc.
On at least one such planet a replicating entity emerges,needing
sustenance to continue replicating. What is sustenance? Why should
something be designated a food? Is "food" just something that provides
energy to a replicating entity?
Countless replicating entities down the ages honed survival strategies.
Such patterns of behaviour were an intrinsic element of the
replication. Amazing stuff.
Knowledge, so called, didn't arise. Some perception arose over time. I
wouldn't dare surmise what creatures knew - or know.
Eventually a creature emerged who could know the lineaments of
existence. But knowledge first had to overcome error. Sanctified error
dominated perception. Such error was unavoidable - but led to tragedy
and gross inefficiency and the destruction of countless human beings
who glimpsed a truth.
Excuses could be made for error up to the present day. And the cost of
error wasn't too high - if one discounted the destruction and
corruption of millions. But now the species stands or falls as a unity.
The cost of error could be horrific. Global error threatens us all. We
know our situation. We must be allowed use that knowledge. We must not
pander to past erroreous views of existence. We must not indulge
deeply-held nonsense. Life is valuable and preciuous and meaningful
enough not to need to seek meaning elsewhere. The human being has the
capacity to know all the foregoing lineaments of existence and to endow
them with as much meaning and value as we could ever require. we are on
the brink of such an age. We have carved out fundamental freedoms
worldwide. Now indifference on the one hand and an obsession with self
on the other - all allied to greed on a global scale - allows reactive
and regressive forces to hinder our advance. We must fight such forces.
But we must fight them not with some empty formula for freedom or
democracy but with a vast committment to a better life for human
beings.
Joseph H
www.humanisation.org
.
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
17 Nov 2005 02:41:39 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:40:10 GMT, in alt.atheism
spam@uce.gov (Bob) wrote in
<437c87e9.136846656@news-server.houston.rr.com>:
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 07:22:24 -0600, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
We've already covered that one. That restriction would apply, *as long as a
state remained a member of the Union*. It does not expressly prohibit a
state from withdrawing from the Union. Nor does any other language in the
Constitution.
If they didn't have the right to withdraw under the Articles, how did
they get it in the Constitution? How did they get it unilaterally?
That's really quite simple to understand. The Constitution, which
became the new law, did not restrict the states from leaving the
Union. The old law was no longer valid.
It's a possible argument, but it is not prima facie evidence that these
states somehow had managed to reaquire sovereignty.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
17 Nov 2005 03:22:21 PM |
|
|
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> said:
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:40:10 GMT, in alt.atheism
spam@uce.gov (Bob) wrote in
<437c87e9.136846656@news-server.houston.rr.com>:
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 07:22:24 -0600, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
We've already covered that one. That restriction would apply, *as long as a
state remained a member of the Union*. It does not expressly prohibit a
state from withdrawing from the Union. Nor does any other language in the
Constitution.
If they didn't have the right to withdraw under the Articles, how did
they get it in the Constitution? How did they get it unilaterally?
That's really quite simple to understand. The Constitution, which
became the new law, did not restrict the states from leaving the
Union. The old law was no longer valid.
It's a possible argument, but it is not prima facie evidence that these
states somehow had managed to reaquire sovereignty.
Here's prima facie, for you: Has the US Supreme Court ever been asked
to rule on whether some action or law is in violation of the Articles
of Confederation?
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
17 Nov 2005 04:20:38 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 21:22:21 GMT, Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
Has the US Supreme Court ever been asked
to rule on whether some action or law is in violation of the Articles
of Confederation?
LOL
The USSC doesn't even know what's in the Constitution much less any
Articles of Confederation.
--
BOYCOTT SONY!
SONY IS TRYING TO TAKE OVER YOUR COMPUTER!
HOMELAND SECURITY TOLD SONY TO CEASE AND DESIST!
YOU DO THE SAME - BOYCOTT SONY!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
17 Nov 2005 10:27:30 AM |
|
|
Publius <m.publius@nospam.comcast.net> said:
forbisgaryg@msn.com wrote in
news:1132206049.070393.70310@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of
Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any
Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or
engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as
will not admit of delay.
This last sentence seems to exclude succession without the concent of
congress. Maybe someone could clarify this point.
We've already covered that one. That restriction would apply, *as long as a
state remained a member of the Union*. It does not expressly prohibit a
state from withdrawing from the Union. Nor does any other language in the
Constitution.
Well, it does now, according to legal scholars.
"14th Amendment: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the
United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens
of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State
shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process
of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws."
Although the wording adopted in the constitutions of Brazil and
Australia would be more explicit. They learned from the US experience.
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Publius" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
17 Nov 2005 08:53:19 PM |
|
|
Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in
news:bmbpn1peahbmu3ujqet0h8reolkdlorbo2@4ax.com:
Well, it does now, according to legal scholars.
"14th Amendment: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the
United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens
of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State
shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process
of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws."
Correct. The 14th Amendment created a new form of citizenship. However,
given that the "privileges and immunities" clause was written out of the
Constitution in the Slaughterhouse cases, shortly after the Civil War
ended, it is hard to say what substance remains to being a "citizen of the
United States."
And the Amendment still does not forbid secession *per se*. If a state
wished to secede, but allowed any citizen who wished to relocate to another
state to do so, would they violate the 14th?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
18 Nov 2005 08:54:21 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 20:53:19 -0600, Publius
<m.publius@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
The 14th Amendment created a new form of citizenship.
It also created the Federal Govt - the last thing the Founding Fathers
wanted to see happen. From that time on, the term "United States" was
no longer plural but singular.
And the Amendment still does not forbid secession *per se*. If a state
wished to secede, but allowed any citizen who wished to relocate to another
state to do so, would they violate the 14th?
Since the Constitution is suspended, the point you raise is moot.
Federal judges can and routinely do legislate from the bench, so there
is no doubt they would concoct something to make secession illegal.
That's when we as citizens abandon the ballot box and reach for the
cartridge box.
--
BOYCOTT SONY!
SONY IS TRYING TO TAKE OVER YOUR COMPUTER!
HOMELAND SECURITY TOLD SONY TO CEASE AND DESIST!
YOU DO THE SAME - BOYCOTT SONY!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
17 Nov 2005 09:35:39 PM |
|
|
Publius <m.publius@nospam.comcast.net> said:
Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in
news:bmbpn1peahbmu3ujqet0h8reolkdlorbo2@4ax.com:
Well, it does now, according to legal scholars.
"14th Amendment: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the
United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens
of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State
shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process
of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws."
Correct. The 14th Amendment created a new form of citizenship. However,
given that the "privileges and immunities" clause was written out of the
Constitution in the Slaughterhouse cases, shortly after the Civil War
ended, it is hard to say what substance remains to being a "citizen of the
United States."
And the Amendment still does not forbid secession *per se*. If a state
wished to secede, but allowed any citizen who wished to relocate to another
state to do so, would they violate the 14th?
It is not mine to decide, or even submit an argument for or against,
but I would profit from seeing it debated intelligently.
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Publius" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
17 Nov 2005 10:05:40 PM |
|
|
Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in
news:8liqn110pb1mgsvb28bckmgo73ak1b84di@4ax.com:
And the Amendment still does not forbid secession *per se*. If a state
wished to secede, but allowed any citizen who wished to relocate to
another state to do so, would they violate the 14th?
It is not mine to decide, or even submit an argument for or against,
but I would profit from seeing it debated intelligently.
There has been quite a bit of discussion in the phil and poli sci
literature over the last few years on the ethics of secession, mostly
precipitated by the situations in Quebec and Eastern Europe. The guy who
more-or-less launched the discussion is Alan Buchanan, who wrote,
"Secession: The Legitimacy of Political Divorce From Fort Sumter to
Lithuania and Quebec."
Here is a decent summary of the arguments:
http://www.secessionist.us/secession.htm
That site is a pro-secessionist site, but the paper is scholarly, and
accurately presents the arguments.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
18 Nov 2005 09:10:51 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 22:05:40 -0600, Publius
<m.publius@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
There has been quite a bit of discussion in the phil and poli sci
literature over the last few years on the ethics of secession, mostly
precipitated by the situations in Quebec and Eastern Europe. The guy who
more-or-less launched the discussion is Alan Buchanan, who wrote,
"Secession: The Legitimacy of Political Divorce From Fort Sumter to
Lithuania and Quebec."
Here is a decent summary of the arguments:
http://www.secessionist.us/secession.htm
That site is a pro-secessionist site, but the paper is scholarly, and
accurately presents the arguments.
If you do not allow divorce, spouses will resort to murder. The same
applies to political institutions. It's either secession or
tyrannicide.
I would personally prefer tyrannicide to secession because I believe
once we clean out all the criminals in the federal govt, the US could
become the beacon of true liberty on Earth. As it is now, only Texas
can carry that burden.
For a piddly $535 million you could make a significant dent in the
problem. A million buck bounty on the head of every cocksucking
criminal in congress would go a long way. Maybe then lawyers would
stay home and screw the locals instead.
Why has Switzerland been so successful as a nation, one that was right
there in the middle of two world wars. Its geographical isolation is a
benefit but it takes more than that. The single most important thing
is that Switzerland does not have a strong authoritatian central govt.
The cantons will not permit it. And with every able-bodied male in
possession of a fully-automatic assault rifle, loaded and ready to be
put into service, the criminals in Switzerland have to find other ways
to exert their power - like in banking instead of politics.
--
BOYCOTT SONY!
SONY IS TRYING TO TAKE OVER YOUR COMPUTER!
HOMELAND SECURITY TOLD SONY TO CEASE AND DESIST!
YOU DO THE SAME - BOYCOTT SONY!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
18 Nov 2005 12:15:58 AM |
|
|
Publius <m.publius@nospam.comcast.net> said:
Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in
news:8liqn110pb1mgsvb28bckmgo73ak1b84di@4ax.com:
And the Amendment still does not forbid secession *per se*. If a state
wished to secede, but allowed any citizen who wished to relocate to
another state to do so, would they violate the 14th?
It is not mine to decide, or even submit an argument for or against,
but I would profit from seeing it debated intelligently.
There has been quite a bit of discussion in the phil and poli sci
literature over the last few years on the ethics of secession, mostly
precipitated by the situations in Quebec and Eastern Europe. The guy who
more-or-less launched the discussion is Alan Buchanan, who wrote,
"Secession: The Legitimacy of Political Divorce From Fort Sumter to
Lithuania and Quebec."
Here is a decent summary of the arguments:
http://www.secessionist.us/secession.htm
That site is a pro-secessionist site, but the paper is scholarly, and
accurately presents the arguments.
Thanks, I will read it.
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
18 Nov 2005 09:15:41 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 06:15:58 GMT, Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
http://www.secessionist.us/secession.htm
That site is a pro-secessionist site, but the paper is scholarly, and
accurately presents the arguments.
Thanks, I will read it.
Is there one on Tyrannicide?
If not, there needs to be one.
--
BOYCOTT SONY!
SONY IS TRYING TO TAKE OVER YOUR COMPUTER!
HOMELAND SECURITY TOLD SONY TO CEASE AND DESIST!
YOU DO THE SAME - BOYCOTT SONY!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
17 Nov 2005 07:37:59 AM |
|
|
Publius wrote:
forbisgaryg@msn.com wrote in
news:1132206049.070393.70310@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of
Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any
Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or
engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as
will not admit of delay.
This last sentence seems to exclude succession without the concent of
congress. Maybe someone could clarify this point.
We've already covered that one. That restriction would apply, *as long as a
state remained a member of the Union*. It does not expressly prohibit a
state from withdrawing from the Union. Nor does any other language in the
Constitution.
You and I have had a similar discussion concerning individual rights.
You held that one is bound by the contracts one enters into and cannot
morally withdraw from that contract at one's convenience. Why do you
hold otherwise concerning states?
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;
grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of
Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in
Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law,
or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title
of Nobility.
This doesn't say "unless the state first withdraws from the Union."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Publius" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
17 Nov 2005 02:39:54 PM |
|
|
wrote in
news:1132234679.385451.28910@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
We've already covered that one. That restriction would apply, *as
long as a state remained a member of the Union*. It does not
expressly prohibit a state from withdrawing from the Union. Nor does
any other language in the Constitution.
You and I have had a similar discussion concerning individual rights.
You held that one is bound by the contracts one enters into and cannot
morally withdraw from that contract at one's convenience. Why do you
hold otherwise concerning states?
One may not unilaterally withdraw from an agreement or contract if the
agreement itself provides the conditions for its termination. For example,
if I, a shipbuilder, enter into a contract with you, a steel mill, to buy
10,000 tons of steel plate, then that contract continues until you have
delivered the plate and I have paid as agreed. The contract is then at an
end. Or if you are a writer and I am a literary agent, we may enter into an
agreement for me to represent you for 3 years. After 3 years, the agreement
ends. Contracts which have no specific termination conditions or
termination date are presumed to continue *at will*. Virtually all
employment contracts are of this type, as are many other kinds of contracts
--- rental of property, organizational memberships, etc. They continue as
long as both parties find the contractual relationship convenient, and they
can all be ended by either party at any time, usually with "reasonable
notice."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
17 Nov 2005 04:19:41 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 14:39:54 -0600, Publius
<m.publius@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
Contracts which have no specific termination conditions or
termination date are presumed to continue *at will*. Virtually all
employment contracts are of this type, as are many other kinds of contracts
--- rental of property, organizational memberships, etc.
Rental property is covered by a lease agreement which has specific
termination conditions for both parties. Fail to pay your rent and you
no longer are a tenant under contract.
Memberships have conditions and time limits. Fail to pay your dues and
you are no longer a member under contract.
--
BOYCOTT SONY!
SONY IS TRYING TO TAKE OVER YOUR COMPUTER!
HOMELAND SECURITY TOLD SONY TO CEASE AND DESIST!
YOU DO THE SAME - BOYCOTT SONY!
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
17 Nov 2005 07:45:17 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 22:19:41 GMT, in alt.atheism
spam@uce.gov (Bob) wrote in
<437d0194.167993562@news-server.houston.rr.com>:
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 14:39:54 -0600, Publius
<m.publius@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
Contracts which have no specific termination conditions or
termination date are presumed to continue *at will*. Virtually all
employment contracts are of this type, as are many other kinds of contracts
--- rental of property, organizational memberships, etc.
Rental property is covered by a lease agreement which has specific
termination conditions for both parties. Fail to pay your rent and you
no longer are a tenant under contract.
Memberships have conditions and time limits. Fail to pay your dues and
you are no longer a member under contract.
Marriages have neither conditions nor time limits. At the time of the
Rebellion, divorce was rare and difficult.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Publius" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
17 Nov 2005 07:56:19 PM |
|
|
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in
news:1gcqn1l2bacnmh6msqp0qp3cphsvb3ke0e@4ax.com:
Marriages have neither conditions nor time limits. At the time of the
Rebellion, divorce was rare and difficult.
There was a pledge "until death do us part." Remember?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
19 Nov 2005 10:41:07 PM |
|
|
Publius <m.publius@nospam.comcast.net> said:
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in
news:1gcqn1l2bacnmh6msqp0qp3cphsvb3ke0e@4ax.com:
Marriages have neither conditions nor time limits. At the time of the
Rebellion, divorce was rare and difficult.
There was a pledge "until death do us part." Remember?
Committing to that is entirely optional.
Marriage is a complicated example of contract.
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
20 Nov 2005 09:08:57 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 04:41:07 GMT, Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
There was a pledge "until death do us part." Remember?
Committing to that is entirely optional.
Nonsense. It's part of the traditional wedding vows.
Marriage is a complicated example of contract.
The justification for divorce is annulment. If one of the parties
fails to live up to the vows, then the marriage is annulled. Divorce
is then justified.
Read the Declaration of Independence in entirety and pay close
attention to the enumeration of grievances. Those were real issues
back then, issues that affected everyone's life. Secession was fully
justified because those grievances were real.
--
BOYCOTT SONY!
SONY IS TRYING TO TAKE OVER YOUR COMPUTER!
HOMELAND SECURITY TOLD SONY TO CEASE AND DESIST!
YOU DO THE SAME - BOYCOTT SONY!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
17 Nov 2005 08:48:43 AM |
|
|
On 17 Nov 2005 05:37:59 -0800, wrote:
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;
grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of
Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in
Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law,
or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title
of Nobility.
This doesn't say "unless the state first withdraws from the Union."
It doesn't need to. It also does not prohibit secession.
Once a state withdraws from the Union, it is no longer obligated by
that article.
Before the states could enter into a confederation, they had to secede
from the Union. Secession is not a confederation - that came later
after secession.
--
BOYCOTT SONY!
SONY IS TRYING TO TAKE OVER YOUR COMPUTER!
HOMELAND SECURITY TOLD SONY TO CEASE AND DESIST!
YOU DO THE SAME - BOYCOTT SONY!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
16 Nov 2005 06:29:27 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 17:25:32 -0600, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
Your claim assumes that the states had such rights, but it is clear from
both the history and language of the Articles and the Constitution that
these states were no longer sovereign. How do they have the right to
engage in this if they are not sovereign?
LOL
--
BOYCOTT SONY!
SONY IS TRYING TO TAKE OVER YOUR COMPUTER!
HOMELAND SECURITY TOLD SONY TO CEASE AND DESIST!
YOU DO THE SAME - BOYCOTT SONY!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
16 Nov 2005 09:01:10 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 08:38:36 -0600, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
So why did Lincoln start the War to free the slaves only in the South?
He didn't start the war.
You gotta be kidding. I can't believe the extent of ignorance about
something as simple as the causes of the War of Northern Aggression.
If Lincoln did not start the War, then why did he declare war by
conscripting 75,000 troops from the state militias.
I give up - wallow in your own ignorance.
--
BOYCOTT SONY!
SONY IS TRYING TO TAKE OVER YOUR COMPUTER!
HOMELAND SECURITY TOLD SONY TO CEASE AND DESIST!
YOU DO THE SAME - BOYCOTT SONY!
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
16 Nov 2005 09:33:49 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 15:01:10 GMT, in alt.atheism
spam@uce.gov (Bob) wrote in
<437b4955.55290234@news-server.houston.rr.com>:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 08:38:36 -0600, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
So why did Lincoln start the War to free the slaves only in the South?
He didn't start the war.
You gotta be kidding. I can't believe the extent of ignorance about
something as simple as the causes of the War of Northern Aggression.
If Lincoln did not start the War, then why did he declare war by
conscripting 75,000 troops from the state militias.
I give up - wallow in your own ignorance.
<http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/cwphtml/tl1861.html>
January 1861 -- The South Secedes.
When Abraham Lincoln, a known opponent of slavery, was elected
president, the South Carolina legislature perceived a threat. Calling a
state convention, the delegates voted to remove the state of South
Carolina from the union known as the United States of America. The
secession of South Carolina was followed by the secession of six more
states -- Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas
-- and the threat of secession by four more -- Virginia, Arkansas,
Tennessee, and North Carolina. These eleven states eventually formed the
Confederate States of America.
February 1861 -- The South Creates a Government.
At a convention in Montgomery, Alabama, the seven seceding states
created the Confederate Constitution, a document similar to the United
States Constitution, but with greater stress on the autonomy of each
state. Jefferson Davis was named provisional president of the
Confederacy until elections could be held.
February 1861 -- The South Seizes Federal Forts.
When President Buchanan -- Lincoln's predecessor -- refused to surrender
southern federal forts to the seceding states, southern state troops
seized them. At Fort Sumter, South Carolina troops repulsed a supply
ship trying to reach federal forces based in the fort. The ship was
forced to return to New York, its supplies undelivered.
Notice that all of these acts of war occurred before Lincoln became
president. No law requires you to be ignorant just because you're from
Texas.
.
|
|
|
| User: "minus" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
16 Nov 2005 10:31:02 AM |
|
|
I always thought that economic interests - you know, we lose the south,
we lose money - was the big motivating force in the beginning of the
Civil War for the North. Or for not allowing states to secede, whether
they had this right or not seems a side issue. But a lot of
northerners did not like slavery and this did play a larger and larger
role in the war.
But the slaveowners had been making war on black people for a long time
and this finally being recognized as wrong. That was a sinful,
unethical war by these slaveowners - despte whatever primitive
documents may have convinced them it was ok or justified it after the
fact.
140? years later, I don't give a rat's ***** what Lincoln's motivation
was, or who started it, if the undercurrent goal is to justify that
aspect of Southern culture at that time.
If it really is a discussion of history, where the goal is to get at
facts and motivations and to understand the state of affairs of that
time, well fine and dandy. That is interesting.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
16 Nov 2005 12:04:25 PM |
|
|
"minus" <underwearallthetime@hotmail.com> said:
I always thought that economic interests - you know, we lose the south,
we lose money - was the big motivating force in the beginning of the
Civil War for the North. Or for not allowing states to secede, whether
they had this right or not seems a side issue. But a lot of
northerners did not like slavery and this did play a larger and larger
role in the war.
But the slaveowners had been making war on black people for a long time
and this finally being recognized as wrong. That was a sinful,
unethical war by these slaveowners - despte whatever primitive
documents may have convinced them it was ok or justified it after the
fact.
140? years later, I don't give a rat's ***** what Lincoln's motivation
was, or who started it, if the undercurrent goal is to justify that
aspect of Southern culture at that time.
If it really is a discussion of history, where the goal is to get at
facts and motivations and to understand the state of affairs of that
time, well fine and dandy. That is interesting.
We could spend a lot of time just arguing about its name:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naming_the_American_Civil_War
Civil War
American Civil War
US Civil War
War Between the States
War of the Rebellion
War of Southern Independence
War for States Rights
War of Northern Aggression
War in Defense of Virginia
Mr. Lincoln's War
War of Secession
War of the Insurrection
War to Save the Union
War for Abolition
War to Prevent Southern Independence.
The Late Unpleasantness
The Lost Cause.
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
16 Nov 2005 11:46:39 AM |
|
|
On 16 Nov 2005 08:31:02 -0800, "minus"
<underwearallthetime@hotmail.com> wrote:
I always thought that economic interests - you know, we lose the south,
we lose money - was the big motivating force in the beginning of the
Civil War for the North.
In order to understand the forces leading to the War, you have to go
back to the Tariff of Abominations of 1832. To prevent the British and
Europeans from gaining a foothold on American soil and to protect
antiquated Northern indusrty from competition of Britain and Europe
which were already well into the Industrial Revolution, Lincoln had no
choice but to stop the secession of the CSA because if left to its own
ends, the British and Europeans would have traded with the CSA for its
cotton to supply its new textile mills, and that would have resulted
in bankrupting Northern industry.
Once the British and Europeans did get a toehold on part of America,
it would have been straightforward to take over the former Colonies -
or so was the fear in the North.
But a lot of
northerners did not like slavery and this did play a larger and larger
role in the war.
You are wrong when you claim that "a lot of Northerners did not like
slavery". The North kept slaves all throughout the War.
But the slaveowners had been making war on black people for a long time
and this finally being recognized as wrong.
You are doing a fine job of regurgitating the racist bigoted
propaganda fed to you by white haters.
Did you know that slaves carried guns in Texas and Louisiana? That's
more than white people can do today unless in some parts of the
country they get the Massa's permission.
Slaves carried guns to protect themselves and their owners from Indian
attacks. If these slaves felt they were being mistreated they would
have used those guns to kill their oppressors.
Did you know that when Sam Houston died penniless, that his personal
slave gave Mrs. Houston his entire life savings of $2000 so they would
not lose the mansion.
Did you know that slaves were paid a wage?
Get the fact before you make a fool out of yourself vomitting up all
that ***** you were filled with in racist bigoted schools.
--
BOYCOTT SONY!
SONY IS TRYING TO TAKE OVER YOUR COMPUTER!
HOMELAND SECURITY TOLD SONY TO CEASE AND DESIST!
YOU DO THE SAME - BOYCOTT SONY!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
15 Nov 2005 04:16:33 PM |
|
|
robpar <robpar@airmaildelete.net> said:
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 13:21:29 -0600, Lars Eighner
<usenet@larseighner.com> wrote:
In our last episode,
<3j6kn1h0o2gmfcvpjmnr086r7278l3chug@4ax.com>, the lovely and
talented robpar broadcast on alt.atheism:
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 08:30:08 GMT, (Bob) wrote:
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 00:02:59 GMT, Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
However these same Just War
theorists said that when Lincoln changed the justification to the
freeing of the slaves, the war met the criteria of Just War. From
that point on, whatever we have to say about it is little more than a
signal of our own values, a Rorschach test if you will.
They are bullshitting you when they claim that Lincoln "hanged the
justification to the freeing of the slaves." Here are the fact that
refute such an unfounded claim:
Lincoln used freeing the slaves, in exactly the same way Bush used the
WMD allegations to justify the current illegal war.
So, you think there were no slaves in the South?
I know that there were slaves in the North as well as the South.
Here's a question or two for those who claim to know the facts:
When was slavery outlawed in each (current) US state?
Did any states never get around to outlawing it? If so, which ones?
We could assume that no answers are needed for states admitted as such
after the 18th of December, 1865, when the 13th. Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution was announced as ratified.
What is of interest are when the states that remained in the Union
outlawed slavery, after the Confederate States were formed -- on
February 4, 1861, by seven Southern slave states (South Carolina,
Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Texas, and Louisiana).
This would be of interest if there were a definitive source.
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
16 Nov 2005 06:01:31 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 22:16:33 GMT, Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
I know that there were slaves in the North as well as the South.
Here's a question or two for those who claim to know the facts:
When was slavery outlawed in each (current) US state?
Did any states never get around to outlawing it? If so, which ones?
The CSA freed the slaves several months prior to its surrender at
Appomattox Courthouse. Former slaves fought in the War.
What is of interest are when the states that remained in the Union
outlawed slavery, after the Confederate States were formed
Slavery was outlawed in the North by the 13th Amendment.
This would be of interest if there were a definitive source.
There is:
Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men:
A History of the American Civil War
by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel
Paperback - 440 pages (May 1996)
Open Court Publishing Company
ISBN: 0812693124
--
BOYCOTT SONY!
SONY IS TRYING TO TAKE OVER YOUR COMPUTER!
HOMELAND SECURITY TOLD SONY TO CEASE AND DESIST!
YOU DO THE SAME - BOYCOTT SONY!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
16 Nov 2005 11:29:05 AM |
|
|
(Bob) said:
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 22:16:33 GMT, Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
I know that there were slaves in the North as well as the South.
Here's a question or two for those who claim to know the facts:
When was slavery outlawed in each (current) US state?
Did any states never get around to outlawing it? If so, which ones?
The CSA freed the slaves several months prior to its surrender at
Appomattox Courthouse. Former slaves fought in the War.
I was asking specifically about outlawing slavery.
What is of interest are when the states that remained in the Union
outlawed slavery, after the Confederate States were formed
Slavery was outlawed in the North by the 13th Amendment.
There is a table at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_state that
purports to show the "official" and "actual" end of slavery in each of
several northern states. It is not easily copied to this post.
This would be of interest if there were a definitive source.
There is:
Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men:
A History of the American Civil War
by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel
Paperback - 440 pages (May 1996)
Open Court Publishing Company
ISBN: 0812693124
That happens to be at my public library and I have requested it.
Thanks.
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
16 Nov 2005 03:52:26 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 17:29:05 GMT, Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men:
A History of the American Civil War
by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel
Paperback - 440 pages (May 1996)
Open Court Publishing Company
ISBN: 0812693124
That happens to be at my public library and I have requested it.
Take your time reading it. Stop after each chapter to see if you can
state the major issues Hummel has addressed. Then read the next
chapter which is a Bibliographic Essay about the preceding chapter
where he goes thru the references and makes comments about the major
issues.
His book is a scholarly masterpiece and should be treated as such.
--
BOYCOTT SONY!
SONY IS TRYING TO TAKE OVER YOUR COMPUTER!
HOMELAND SECURITY TOLD SONY TO CEASE AND DESIST!
YOU DO THE SAME - BOYCOTT SONY!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
15 Nov 2005 01:14:29 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 11:33:11 -0600, robpar <robpar@airmaildelete.net>
wrote:
Lincoln used freeing the slaves, in exactly the same way Bush used the
WMD allegations to justify the current illegal war.
Lincoln did not even mention slaves when he started the War. The issue
was Union soldiers at Ft. Sumter.
Bush did not justify the current war, which is not illegal. Congress
issued the Declaration of War in which it gave the justifications.
+++++
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:5:./temp/~c107UdvRYG::
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of
2002 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)
H.J.Res.114
One Hundred Seventh Congress
of the United States of America
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
the twenty-third day of January, two thousand and two
Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and
illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of
nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the
national security of the United States and enforce United Nations
Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a
United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq
unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear,
biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and
develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States
intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that
Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale
biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear
weapons development program that was much closer to producing a
nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire,
attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and
destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development
capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors
from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded
that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened
vital United States interests and international peace and security,
declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its
international obligations' and urged the President `to take
appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant
laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its
international obligations';
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security
of the United States and international peace and security in the
Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of
its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to
possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons
capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and
supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations
Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its
civilian population thereby threatening international peace and
security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account
for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an
American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully
seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and
willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations
and its own people;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing
hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States,
including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush
and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and
Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the
United Nations Security Council;
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility
for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests,
including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known
to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist
organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and
safety of United States citizens;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001,
underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of
weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons
of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will
either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the
United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international
terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that
would result to the United States and its citizens from such an
attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend
itself;
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990)
authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations
Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant
resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that
threaten international peace and security, including the development
of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United
Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security
Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population
in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991),
and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in
violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);
Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President
`to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security
Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of
Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669,
670, 674, and 677';
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it
`supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of
United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent
with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian
population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and
`constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability
of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of
all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security
Council Resolution 688';
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed
the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United
States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi
regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace
that regime;
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United
States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our
common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary
resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council
resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and
security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on
terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist
groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in
direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and
other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it
is in the national security interests of the United States and in
furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations
Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of
force if necessary;
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on
terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested
by the President to take the necessary actions against international
terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations,
organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided
the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored
such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take
all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist
organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who
planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that
occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or
organizations;
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take
action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism
against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint
resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law
107-40); and
Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States
to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf
region: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use
of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the
President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and
encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion
and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant
Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise
of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be
feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority,
make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the
national security of the United States against the continuing threat
posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all
relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq;
and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take the
necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist
organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who
planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that
occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares
that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory
authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers
Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this
joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
(a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days,
submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint
resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of
authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts
that are expected to be required after such actions are completed,
including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation
Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).
(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the
submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with
the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint
resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to
the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law
93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated
report to the Congress.
(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information
required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force
Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report
required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting
the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.
+++++
1. The North kept slaves during the War.
The Todd family were slave holders, and Lincoln used them many
times. Mary Todd owned several servants, gifts from her family.
I wonder how many bigots know who Mary Todd is.
--
BOYCOTT SONY!
SONY IS TRYING TO TAKE OVER YOUR COMPUTER!
HOMELAND SECURITY TOLD SONY TO CEASE AND DESIST!
YOU DO THE SAME - BOYCOTT SONY!
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
