Posted on 07/22/2015 7:36:12 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Since Christianity took over Western Culture. It's common law, not statutory law.
Never, because it was always understood that marriage was between a man & woman, no other laws necessary.
What you said.
Likewise, once the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled their Constitution made slavery illegal, no further laws were considered necessary.
But it didn't. That was merely a Judicial interpretation from Activist Judges. The court's simply twisted that answer out of the words chosen, and in fact, words inspired by the Declaration of Independence, which also didn't really mean that.
What Massachusetts did is simply another example of deliberate Judicial Activism. Had the Delegates of Massachusetts clearly written that they wished to Abolish Slavery, there is a good possibility that such a clause would have been stricken, but they sneaked in some words that gave the Liberal Judiciary enough room to stretch the meaning.
So I don't "get" why you think this is a big deal.
I don't think it's a big deal. I'm merely pointing out that you were wrong in your characterization of it. Court Action is not Legislative Action. It is more of the same sort of extra legal dictatorship imposed by courts with which we have been plagued mostly since Roosevelt, and regarding which most conservatives have little approval.
Judicial activism is a thing conservatives Generally Hate, because we are the ones mostly abused by it.
After the Declaration of Independence in 1776, Vermont was the first state to take action against slavery, in 1777, and Massachusetts the second, in 1783. Yes, it appears that no Northern state abolished slavery overnight, but certainly by 1860 slavery was pretty much just a bad memory in all Northern states.
Not all. Delaware, New Jersey, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri all still had slavery. 1/4th of the Union states still had slavery.
And your problem with this is what, exactly?
That you aren't looking at the history accurately. That you are equating one thing with another, and ignoring the distinctions and the legalities involved. That you use such false equivalences as rationalization for your arguments regarding subsequent history.
That is what my problem with that is.
So long as it gets them out of the state, eh? Do not discount the absolute racist hatred that Northern States had for blacks. You should read the Illinois Anti-Black laws.
So, abolishing the possibility of importing new slaves from Africa only made Virginia bred slaves much more valuable.
I have no doubt that Money was the primary motivating factor in this effort, as it is in most efforts.
By the way, Massachusetts recorded one "slave" in it's 1840 census, but none in any census either before or after. So, all claims that Massachusetts somehow tolerated slavery because it lacked some law or other, must be viewed as just the normal run-of-the-mill cockamamie nonsense we've come to expect and love from our indefatigable Lost-Causers.
Well see here, in order for a statement to be correct, it must not have exceptions. If a Slave was recorded in Massachusetts, then Massachusetts didn't really ban slavery now, did they?
As for "Lost-Causers", i'll tell you what is a "lost cause." Making the Federal Finances Balance with 50% of the population being a parasite class, and 100 trillion in unfunded obligations. I dare say there may come a time when you think breaking from the Union is quite the rational thing to do, because anyone that remains with it is going to be turned into an actual slave, at least insofar as their income is concerned.
Should such a time come, you will be eating your words I think.
We have no actual records of any Northern slaves being sold "down South",
Why would there be such records? Especially if it is from one person to another? No doubt there were "bills of sale" but why would they get into any official "record"?
We should note that those counties with the fewest slaves also had the most loyal Unionists.
Of that I have no doubt. If you aren't making any money off of slavery, why would you support it?
It's cute that you think you would have the same opinions did you but live in a different stream of History. :)
No, my 5-great grandfather fought for representation here out of Norfolk in the American Revolution. Representation is in my blood.
Especially with your ancestors coming from 1770s Virginia.
No, most Americans know and have always known slavery is evil.
Do you believe your Virginia Ancestors regarded it as evil? What makes you think you would in the same circumstance? This is exactly what I mean when I say you do not comprehend "zeitgeist."
It's what our Constitution is about, except the parts the southerners wrote. lol
The Constitution implicitly recognizes slavery. I would suggest that if you think it was a bad deal, the Northern States (most of which were still slave states at this time) should not have agreed to it back when it mattered. Instead, they made the devil's bargain, and then refused to honor it.
They pulled a "bait and switch" on the South, because they needed the South but could not conquer it in 1787. Once they got to the point where they could conquer it, they no longer had to keep their bargain.
It is not so much things that I want to do, it is more along the lines of things I do not want to do.
I do not want to bake gay wedding cakes.
I do not want to have the same say in our governance as a welfare parasite.
I do not want to live with the fear that a welfare parasite elected "Precedent" is going to hand nuclear weapons to a nation of religious Kook Nutjobs with extra helpings of super crazy sauce.
I do not want a government to tell me that I must buy healthcare whether I like it or not.
I do not want a government to tell me that I must rent any houses I may own to homosexuals, or for that matter anyone else, if I should chose not to.
I do not want money held out from my check and sent to Washington D.C. to be used to fund Abortion.
I do not want a government to allow foreign citizens to come into my country illegally to take jobs, to rape and murder our citizens, and to demand resources from us to support them.
I do not want a government that gives special consideration to other groups rather than treating us all the same.
I do not want a government that is debasing it's currency and thereby stealing the value of money I have in savings.
I guess that's more than three.
Can you think of some things that you personally want to do but can't do here? What are the three most important things?
And all you got from my entire message was "We are less free,"?
The meat of it got short shrift?
................................U. S. Department of Commerce
................................Agricultural Production of the South
........................................Yearly Detail 1859
Value of Total U.S. Exports ..........$278,902,000
Value of Raw Southern Products:
....................Cotton .....................$161,435,000
....................Tobacco .....................21,074,000
....................Rice ............................2,207,000
....................Naval stores .................3,696,000
....................Sugar ..........................197,000
....................Molasses ........................76,000
....................Hemp .............................9,000
....................Other ........................9,615,000
________
Total ( 71% ) $198,309,000
Value of Southern manufactured Cotton exports ............4,989,000
Value of cotton component of Northern Manufactured cotton exports (60%) ......3,669,000
___________
Total ( 74% ) $205,459,000
Value of Processed Foods:
.............Bread-stuffs/processed fish/meats/corn...........$36,640,000
Total Southern Products ( 87% ) $242,099,000
Export Specie for Purchase or debts: ........$57,502,000 assume 20% for overseas purchase.
Total Southern Contribution ....................$252,000,000
U.S. Department of Commerce, U. S. Treasury, Report of L. E. Chittenden, Howell Cobb, Treasurer, Annual State of the Union Address, James Buchanan, J. D. B. DeBow, Charles Adams, Thomas Kettel, W. F. Taussig, Thomas Huertas, Historical Statistics of the United States Department of Commerce, pg. 106,432.
Well, I agree with you. It is hard to come up with things you want to do but can't do in this country. I thought maybe you'd come up with something like you can't drive without seat belts or you can't smoke cigars in a commercial airliner, or you know, something important like that. The fact is that we're pretty free here to do what we want to do. And, a lot of people can't handle that much freedom and they wind up doing close to nothing at all.
You've also listed a lot of the policies that you oppose and it's a pretty standard list. Nearly everyone disagrees with some of what is going on and I have found that most of the things that irritate me come and go with time. You shouldn't let any of those things wreck your life. When is the last time you baked a cake for a gay wedding? ;-)
As to the last thing on your list (your concerns about inflation), it will help if you just view the dollar as another asset class like real estate, precious metals, stocks, bonds, foreign currencies, commodities, etc. The trick is to avoid investing the asset classes that you believe will lose their value relative to other classes of assets.
If you are trying to protect your wealth by putting your money in the bank (or in your mattress), you are investing in the dollar. If you think that the value of the dollar is being debased, then don't invest in the dollar. If you are uncomfortable with the dollar, then invest in something else. Obviously, not everything can lose value relative to everything else. If something is going down in value, then it is going down in value relative to something else. Invest in that something else.
You have to make the call regarding what you predict will gain or lose value. You have to invest in something.
I really don't want to encourage you to see the American people as consisting of two opposing groups that disagree about everything. I really wouldn't even want to live in that kind of a country.
I know you to be capable of seeing much more than that. I just take things one issue at a time. With regard to an issue, I am not afraid to disagree with people who tend to agree with me on other things. Most people I know agree with me on some issues and disagree with me about others. That's just life. And, I understand that most of the time it really doesn't matter how I feel about an issue. I have to deal with the world as it is.
I understand my limitations. I know I can't control how much the city spends on roads - I drive on the ones that are there. My job is not to make all the rules or to control the weather. My job is to prepare myself to succeed in whatever conditions I have to face.
Of course, a lot of our leaders prove to be incompetent. That doesn't mean I have to be miserable.
You have to make the call regarding what you predict will gain or lose value. You have to invest in something.
It is rather Ironic that someone who argues so strongly about supporting the Union is advising people to steer clear of it's instruments. :)
I would think that the Union should be protecting the value of it's currency, not encouraging secession from it.
You are ignoring the larger problem expressed in my concerns. This is not how a sane nation maintains it's currency.
No, I'm not discouraging anyone from investing in the dollar. I'm encouraging you to see the dollar as an asset class - one means of storing value. As I said, you have to make a prediction as to whether you believe that the value of the dollar will rise or fall relative to other asset classes. If you believe that the dollar will fall in value relative to the values of other assets, then you should invest again in those other asset classes. It's not as mysterious as you're trying to make it. It's really quite simple.
I would think that the Union should be protecting the value of it's currency, not encouraging secession from it.
When the dollar increases in value relative to other currencies, the goods and services that we produce here in the US become more expensive for foreigners to buy with the foreign currencies that by definition are falling in value relative to the strengthening dollar. Other things being equal, that means we will produce and sell less of our goods and services and that means lower levels of employment here in the US. So, when a country is experiencing high levels of unemployment, that country will often try to reduce the value of its currency relative to other currencies.
When you hear Trump complaining about China "manipulating its currency," he is claiming that China is purposely holding down the value of Chinese currency to make its goods more attractive to foreigners (e.g., shoppers in Walmart in the US). So, you shouldn't assume that any government is always trying to "protect" the value of its currency.
For you as an individual, predicting future values is important. As an individual, you cannot control the future supply and demand for any currency. You can only decide whether you want to invest in it or not and that decision should be based upon your prediction as to whether that currency is going to rise or fall relative to alternative classes of assets. If you are convinced that the value of the dollar is going to fall relative to other assets, then you should invest in those other assets rather than investing in the dollar.
Yes, you’re right. There are alternatives to happiness.
Huh? That was as clear as Boston Harbor, as George HW Bush would say.
Especially with your ancestors coming from 1770s Virginia.
Oh, so northerners then were not truly for freedom according to DL. When we all meet in the Great Beyond maybe you can tell those that fought in the northern colonies at places like Bunker Hill, those who gave you your rights and freedoms, how much they sucked and how great online warriors like you are. Typical Lost Causer short-sighted prejudice.
Do you believe your Virginia Ancestors regarded it as evil?
They must've, they avoided it like the plague. Through the generations, they were one of the founding families of Pocahontas County, went up through Pike County Ohio, down to central Illinois. Nary a slave to be found as far as I can tell in the biographies.
What makes you think you would in the same circumstance? This is exactly what I mean when I say you do not comprehend "zeitgeist."
No, a soul is a soul and has core beliefs, time period notwithstanding.
The Constitution implicitly recognizes slavery. I would suggest that if you think it was a bad deal, the Northern States (most of which were still slave states at this time) should not have agreed to it back when it mattered. Instead, they made the devil's bargain, and then refused to honor it.
The Constitution was followed through the amendment process.
They pulled a "bait and switch" on the South, because they needed the South but could not conquer it in 1787. Once they got to the point where they could conquer it, they no longer had to keep their bargain.
Yep, people like Washington and Jefferson were quite the tricksters against the south. /s
Like I said earlier, you are always 180 degrees from common sense and knowledge.
BTW, you said your family came over in the 20th century. From where is it that you family came from that you seek to transform America into, as so many immigrants are prone to do when they come over, turn America into the very thing they had to flee. It may explain your absolute hatred of common sense and knowledge.
I didn't think you would grasp it.
Incidentally, if you don't think the waters of Boston Harbor, in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, are clear, that is because of the tea we threw into it.
That's all ...........now let's get back to the War of Southern Secession........
Like me, he doesn't seem to foresee any imminent collapse of our civilization. He and I were hearing that song 50 years ago. It never happened. Taylor ends his May 26 column ("Obama Jackson") with the following: "I suspect President Obama's popularity will continue long after his death, and it might take almost 200 years for the public to catch up to how badly he's done at the job."
So, relax. If Taylor's right, we'll be good to go for another couple of centuries, anyway.
Just thought i’d let you know that I saw your message, and that I trust the numbers you come up with more than I do the numbers I hear from the apologists.
Is he still around? I havent seen him for years.
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.