Posted on 11/21/2006 5:23:06 AM PST by SJackson
let me ask you a simple YES or NO question???
are you really clueLESS enough to believe that TWO different major boating magazines conspired to deceive their readership that a BOOK, which Motor boating & Sailing AND The Rudder BOTH reviewed in 1970/71, did NOT exist. (in order to believe the "nameless & BANNED shunned one" on this subject, that is what you HAVE to believe.)
frankly, i could care less about any other answer except YES or NO from you. absent that YES/NO, we have nothing to discuss on this subject.
free dixie,sw
am i SURE?? NO, i am not, is the answer.
free dixie,sw
No, I can believe that you're lying again. I can believe that one of these is simply an article about the USCG's Picket Patrol and the other a figment of your imagination.
Look, all you have to do is find one single source that lists "Yachts Against Subs" as a book. One library catalog. One bibliography. One bookseller. That's all.
But you can't, can you? And no amount of your sputtering and fuming is going to change that.
That's about what I figured. Eveyrone who disagrees with you is lying, everything that agrees with you is the truth. And the men inside Sumter were eating chocolate bonbons while Beauregard lobbed the odd shell off in their general direction.
I've read Lincoln's 'Fever dream' / John Murtha/Kerry speech several times.
The right for me (because I can) to pound you into a bloody pulp is not a 'sacred right' - it's the sheer imposition of physical prowess. Lincoln is NOT advocating that bloody revolutions rise up around the world overthrowing the existing government - he's averring to the right to self government via peaceable separation. Lincoln states, 'Mexico, including Texas, revolutionized against Spain' - not seeking to overthrow the government in Spain, but separating FROM Spain only to establish local government of the Mexican people. '[S]till later, Texas revolutionized against Mexico' - again a separation FROM Mexico. Just as we 'revolutionized' from Britain - we SECEDED and formed our own government, one not under divine rule.
It all goes back to Jefferson/the Declaration and Locke's Two Treatises of Government, but Jefferson and the DoI argue for the right of the common people to rule themselves. That's the 'revolutionary' idea espoused by Lincoln.
By citing two bloody revolutions as his examples? By talking about the right of a majority to put down a minority that might oppose their new government? By talking about the borders of Texas being only as far as they could physically control and no further? It's amazing how you guys try to twist everything Lincoln says to fit your agenda. Generally, though, you're trying to make him look bad. Now you're trying to make him look like some prophet of southern independence. It makes me laugh.
Now, do you accept that the speech also gives black slaves in the south the "sacred right" to rise up and overthrow their masters?
Heyworth,
The principle behind Locke/Jefferson is that ALL men have the right to self-government. Of course the slaves captures in Africa, carried on Yankee ships, sold in Northern markets, or living in the South have the right to self-government.
Lincoln is not clamoring for bloody revolutions to occur around the world - he wasn't Stalin or Hitler, why do you want to portray his ideology as such? What a madman he would be if he stood on the floor of the House and argued for every society to overthrow their rulers in a bloody massacre?
Do they have a right to MURDER anyone - NO! Just as no owner had the right to kill a slave.
btw, WHICH of the PERMANENTLY BANNED "former members of the DAMNyankee forum of lunatics, HATERS, nitwits, etc." are you???
me thinks i have read your BILGE & NONSENSE before.
fyi, i suspect you are the ignorant,BIGOTED, "nameLESS shunned one" in a NEW GUISE = the same old BIGOTED, hate-FILLED words/syntax, different name.
free dixie,sw
It doesn't have to be a bloody massacre; that would depend on the opposition. But if you're claiming that no one has a right to self-government unless they can go about it without anybody getting hurt, then you've effectively denied the right altogether.
Do they have a right to MURDER anyone - NO!
Then by what right did the south begin to shell Sumter?
'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'
'Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.'
'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.'
You're contradicting yourself. On the one hand you're claiming that bloody revolutions are anathema, and on the other hand you're trumpeting them as your right. Why do you deny slaves the same right to rise up and overthrow their masters by use of violence that you claim the south had when they began shelling Fort Sumter? It appears that your position is that resorting to violence is okay if you agree with that side, but immoral if you disagree.
You're misunderstanding the distinctions. A 'Revolution' need not be bloody - the revolution the framers/Lincoln refer to is that people will assert their God-given right of self government - to abstain from the misguided belief that we must be of royal blood to govern. Sadly, even the ancient Israelites chose to be ruled by an earthly king, ignoring their Heavenly one. That's what made the Declaration so important - not just to us but worldwide. An abandonment of earthly kings.
The right to rise up in revolt by force and commit murder is not God-given nor moral. God commands the slave to 'count their own masters worthy of all honour' [I Tim 6:1 KJV].
God commands the slave to 'count their own masters worthy of all honour'
You don't see any contradiction in your statements?
The right to rise up in revolt by force and commit murder is not God-given nor moral.
In other words, the American Revolution was immoral?
Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong again. The Civil War began because of two things: tariffs, politics, and Lincoln's totatlitarian ways.
Lincoln ran on the Morrill Tariff, said two weeks before his inauguration that no other issue was as important. As for the politics part, the newly formed pro-tax, anti-states rights Republican Party wanted to stop the spread of the Democratic Party out west and ending slavery was part of that.
As for Lincoln's dictatorial tendencies, he centralized the government of this country like no one before, and no one since. He fulfilled his mentor Henry Clay's vision of a huge federal government and massive taxation, and "American System" endless pork projects.
It must also be pointed out that he utterly botched the seriousness of the war, almost had to abandon the White House right after the very first major battle, and set in motion a bloodbath that would amount to six million dead Americans in today's numbers.
This is a man who is praised by communists (the 3000 Americans who went to Spain to fight for the communists during the Spanish Civil War called themselves the Abe Lincoln Brigade), praised by Hitler.
He was a dictatorial politician, locking up anyone who spoke out against the war even in areas where the war was unpopular with virtually everyone. Suspension of habeus corpus, destruction of civilians in the south, women and children faced with a scorched earth campaign by his top generals. This was never, ever about slavery. It was about collecting taxes (he threatened war over the tariff, not slavery, in his first presidential speech), locking up the west for the Republicans, and federalizing the country.
That's three, but then you're the king of 2+2=the south paying tariffs on exports.
As for Lincoln's dictatorial tendencies, he centralized the government of this country like no one before, and no one since.
Care to cite some examples? I'd say that Wilson, both Roosevelts, and LBJ did far more to centralize power.
You call Lincoln a dictator, but what kind of dicatator puts himself up for reelection--a reelection that he might well have lost, were it not for some military successes.
It must also be pointed out that he utterly botched the seriousness of the war, almost had to abandon the White House right after the very first major battle, and set in motion a bloodbath that would amount to six million dead Americans in today's numbers.
Jefferson Davis failed to understand what war meant as well, DID have to abandon his capital, and, by ordering the firing on Sumter, set in motion the bloodbath that would follow.
This is a man who is praised by communists (the 3000 Americans who went to Spain to fight for the communists during the Spanish Civil War called themselves the Abe Lincoln Brigade), praised by Hitler.
Hitler also praised highway construction. Does that make Eisenhower a Nazi favorite?
He was a dictatorial politician, locking up anyone who spoke out against the war even in areas where the war was unpopular with virtually everyone
Do you have any idea how unpopular Lincoln was in some quarters? If he'd locked up everyone who spoke against him, as you claim, he'd have to lock up millions.
This was never, ever about slavery.
According to the Declarations of Causes, Stephens' Cornerstone Speech, and hundreds of other original southern sources it was.
Yeah, and they fought along side the George Washington Brigade. Who knew that Washington was a commie, too?
"As for Lincoln's dictatorial tendencies, he centralized the government of this country like no one before, and no one since."
Precisely why Hitler praised him in Mien Kampf. German was a republic of states prior to rise of the Nazi Party and Hitler looked upon Lincoln's example of subjegating a republic of states into "one central govt" as you say.
I double-dare anyone to look that one up.
You're on. Here's the actual relevant text from Mein Kampf:
By a federated state we understand a league of sovereign states which band together of their own free will, on the strength of their sovereignty; ceding to the totality that share of their particular sovereign rights which makes possible and guarantees the existence of the common federation.Now, you find me where Hitler actually mentions the name of Lincoln or praises him for consolidating government. This is yet another of those allegedly smoking guns that Lost Causers are so fond of waving, which turns out on closer examination to be more like a cold pickle.In practice this theoretical formulation does not apply entirely to any of the federated states existing on earth today. Least of all to the American Union, where, as far as the overwhelming part of the individual states are concerned, there can be no question of any original sovereignty, but, on the contrary, many of them were sketched into the total area of the Union in the course of time, so to speak. Hence in the individual states of the American Union we have mostly to do with smaller and larger territories, formed for technical, administrative reasons, and, often marked out with a ruler, states which previously had not and could not have possessed any state sovereignty of their own. For it was not these states that had formed the Union, on the contrary it was the Union which formed a great part of such so-called states. The very extensive special rights granted, or rather assigned, to the individual territories are not only in keeping with the whole character of this federation of states, but above all with the size of its area, its spatial dimensions which approach the scope of a continent. And so, as far as the states of the American Union are concerned, we cannot speak of their state sovereignty, but only of their constitutionally established and guaranteed rights, or better, perhaps, privileges.
Actually, the so called "Black Codes" were modeled by Reconstruction (yankee)legislators to model the laws of their own New England and Indiana/Ohio codes.
Nathan Bedford Forrest disbanded the original Klan in 1874. The Klan of the 1920's and '60s has it's origins in Indiana, not the South.
The South has always provided a safe-haven for Judiasm. The largest Jewish military cemetary outside Israel is in Richmond.
Shalom
Actually, the so called "Black Codes" were modeled by Reconstruction (yankee)legislators to model the laws of their own New England and Indiana/Ohio codes.
Nathan Bedford Forrest disbanded the original Klan in 1874. The Klan of the 1920's and '60s has it's origins in Indiana, not the South.
The South has always provided a safe-haven for Judiasm. The largest Jewish military cemetary outside Israel is in Richmond.
Shalom
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.