Skip to comments.The Great Civil War Lie
Posted on 06/11/2013 4:48:08 AM PDT by iowamark
click here to read article
I won’t push this thread any further off-topic except to say that the ADL doesn’t appear to agree that FDR was an anti-Semite. It’s especially foolhardy to judge people or their actions through a contemporary lens.
It is often tossed off that Lincoln was a racist, southerners were all sympathetic to slavery, and now FDR an anti-Semite. All mis-statements IMO.
How about just dealing with it logically?
But very Southron. And you forgot the 'Lincoln was gay' claims tossed about
Nobody wanted to be drafted to fight for the “black man”. It was ok to volunteer for Lincoln’s War but being drafted was a whole different kettle of fish.
Well, yes, the ADL is a left wing organization so of course they think well of FDR. That is my whole point. Official Jews consider the Democratic Party their party, but they do so incorrectly.
The Lincoln Coven members guzzled the Lincoln Kool-Aid.
I'm pretty self-taught in that area.
You had a fool for a teacher.
Medoff is definitely pushing things to build a case against Roosevelt, but he does have stuff to push and to build.
He doesn't mention any casual social anti-Semitism in the Roosevelt family on the one hand or the fact that Roosevelt had so many Jewish associates and appointees on the other.
He relies on ideas that FDR shared with many at the time: that immigration was to be restricted to maintain the current ethnic composition of the country, and that too many Jews in any one place would result in anti-Semitism.
Whether that made Roosevelt an anti-Semite in the context of his own day is something people will have to make up their own minds about. It certainly is true that accepted attitudes then were very different from what's considered acceptable now.
Perhaps. But at least I got some education on the subject. Unlike yourself.
Maybe you’ve been flagged already but you’ve got a site problem again...............
Like i said, I didn’t want to drift too far off topic but i was curious about Sam’s various “understandings”. Turns out they’re only slightly less tissue-thin than cva’s, LOL.
I really don’t GAD about FDR or have any special desire to defend him but the ADL - the protector of all things Jewish examined the various allegations against him and found them to be largely without serious merit. For every article I found that was critical of FDR as a racist or anti_Semite I found four that refuted it - with better sourced footnotes.
Fact was that in the mid-30’s over half the American population identified Jews with some sort of negative association (according to the ADL). At a time when congress was seeking to limit immigration of Asians - especially Japanese because it was felt that they would not assimilate (sound familiar?) FDR appointed an unprecedented number of Jews to administration positions. Not the sort of thing one would do if they had an unnatural fear or loathing of a group.
Enough of the snipe-hunts for this boy ;-)
"I'm glad FDR was reelected, otherwise we might have had concentration camps in the US."
I had to think about that one a little.
Like i said, I didnt want to drift too far off topic
I dunno. This is actually more interesting. Some guy writes an article saying that the Civil War wasn't all about tariffs. Can anybody seriously disagree with that?
No, they had several ways that were tried to bring the southern states back normal. The most generous and conciliatory were tried first. That was when the KKK was started. In response to the KKK, more stringent measures were attempted.
I think there are many embarrassing moments for the US, such as the frequent murder of US soldiers of African heritage by the insurrection, the murder of US soldiers from southern states if captured by the insurrection, and the murder of US citizens loyal to the US by the insurrection.
The correct action in that case would have been to line up twice as many southern soldiers and execute them, and to assert that any southern response to that would lead to continues similar responses. US prisoners of war should have been better treated than they were. Southern soldiers were not treated as well as they should have been, but in contrast with the southern treatment of US soldiers, southern soldiers were given liberal parole at Vickburg, Appomattox Court House and North Carolina.
It did get significant attention in Britain. Prince Albert on his deathbed wanted the prime minister to promise him that they would not support slavery.
Rifles work for all parties. No doubt some of the laws that forbade slavery from operating in free states were intended to keep southeron slavers from visiting the yankees.
Bit the Northern states didn’t start a war over it.
Keep in mind that the tariff was so inoffensive and fair a tax that the neo-confederates have to lie and complain about the imaginary tax on cotton.
Oddly, the insurrection resorted to the drafted long before the US.
And noone really wanted to fight for slavery either, as you tell us.
“A rich man’s war, but a poor man’s fight.” was the way they put it.
Slave owners got deferments. Non-slave owners were conscripted into the militia, and the militia was forced to patrol for runaway slaves long before the war started.
Isn't that what we're talking about here? Violations of the compact by other states so severe that one side can decide the compact is broken? Webster is saying that states cannot decide for themselves that some action is unconstitutional and that as a result the compact is broken. He is quite rightly pointing out that it is a matter for the judiciary to determine.
LOL! It was a letter. Trying to insinuate it was a provision as if it had some force in Constitutional law is, well, pretty lame .IMHO.
Poor choice of words on my part. Would it be better to say that Madison's position that states could not by themselves decide to leave the Union still stands?
The fortification occurred long before the war started. Back when the fortification occurred the southern representatives wanted it, liked it, and slave owners were paid for having their ‘property’ employed in making the fortification.
Rather like Lee paid slave owners to fortify Richmond in the early days of the insurrection. Oh, and he paid himself too.
After all, you are smarter than those stupid Jews that don’t know what they are doing, right?
So now we find you being deceptive.
No, we're talking about whether or not the federal authority has any say-so in the matter. Webster was speaking of a State that was in the compact picking and choosing which provisions it would observe, NOT leaving the Compact altogether.
Poor choice of words on my part.
No biggie. Communicating solely with the written word without the subtle clues of voice inflection and body language seems to present it's own set of problems. Maybe that's why some of the Founders' writings just seem to go on, and on, and....on :-)
Would it be better to say that Madison's position that states could not by themselves decide to leave the Union still stands?
Under those particular circumstances, yes, but not under all circumstances.
These letters were written during the threat of secession by the southern states due to federal tarriffs. In that respect, Madison was correct. As long as a State remained within the Compact, it was obligated to pay whatever taxes were imposed....BUT
He noted in the follow postscript that the discussion had concerned the abuse of the singular federal authority, NOT whether or not the majority of the other States were using the federal government as a tool to control/punish the minority.
P.S. No notice has been taken in the inclosed paper of the fact, that the present charge of usurpations & abuses of power, is not that they are measures of the Govt. violating the will of its Constituents, as was the case with the Alien & Sedition Acts, but that they are measures of a Majority of the Constituents themselves, oppressing the Minority thro the forms of the Govt. This distinction would lead to very different views of the topics under discussion. It is connected with the fundamental principles of Rep: Govt: and with the question of comparative danger of oppressive Majorities from the Sphere and Structure of the General Govt. and from those of the particular Govts.
James Madison to E Everett, April 1830
Whoops! There's that 'republican form of government' thing again!
'Deceptive' people don't admit to mistakes, just like you refuse to concerning Art 4, Sec 4.
And Article 4 section 4
1. only discusses domestic violence, not insurrection.
2. uses the term “Executive” the same as Article 2 section 1.
Other parts of Article 4 use the term “Congress” so your point that the heading means that all terms under Article 4 refer to states is incorrect.
That is not deceptive, those are facts.
Your pretense that Article 4 section 4 limits the ability of the federal executive to suppress insurrections is false. Your pretense that it has anything to do with the ability to supress insurrections is deceptive.
Glad I could help you on that.
And there was no attempt by a majority of states to use the constitution to punish a minority, in 1860.
Therefore it was the duty of the southern states to (1) not begin an insurrection and (2) Pay their taxes.
Yet the Founders never defined insurrection. In fact, it wasn't defined until 1861
MAYBE they figured it would make it rather difficult to exercise their RIGHT to 'alter or abolish' the federal government if IT had the ability to determine whether or not they could.
uses the term Executive the same as Article 2 section 1.
I've given multiple sources that say otherwise.
YOUR deception is that you continue to make an assertion based on nothing more than the results of your own intellectual masturbations.
How is it any more definitive there than it was in the Insurrection Act of 1807?
The states retained the right of revolution. The federal government (and the state governments) retain the rights to put down insurrection.
Both are extra-legal events, though if and insurrection made war against the United States, that would be treason, and could have legal penalties.
Just as terorism is not constrained by legality, and terrorist acts can lead to significant penalties not inflicted by the judiciary.
Except your multiple sources don’t turn Article 4 Section 4 into something that has to do with insurrection. It remains a consideration of what to do regarding domestic violence.
Do you seriously think...... after your behavior.... that I'll be answering any more of your questions?
Show me the federal government's Constitutional authority to define insurrection
Well bless you’re little pea-picking heart - you even found a little cartoon to show me how much you care ;-)
No. Get your education on your own dime.
As the comment was NOT directed to you, the refusal is not yours to give.
Show me where it states that in the Constitution.
Do you seriously think...... after your behavior.... that I’ll be answering any more of your questions?
Do you seriously think...... after your behavior.... that I care? ;-)
If it is a legal term, then it may be defined, either by common law (officials decided if it is, or isn’t based on the case at hand) or, alternatively, a tighter definition can be written by a legislature and passed as law.
The life of the law has been experience.
Oddly, they get offended if anyone disagrees with their opinons.
She posted two sources neither of which agreed with her position, was identified for it, and now she is upset with you because you showed that her sources didn’t support her position.
(sarcasm) You must really be a big meany. (/sarcasm)
Yea we seemed to be drifting towards some kind of twisted post-dialectical reasoning exercise....
“Show me where it states they have the right to breathe air”
(Do it now!)
I don’t have to because you didn’t agree with me that the moon is made of green cheese!
There are different kinds of law. for you I will give them a name and an example.
Physical law: The speed of light is 186,284 miles per second.
Constitutional law: Controversies between the states are to be resolved with the Supreme Court as original jurisdiction.
Legislative law: The militia consists of the national guard and the unorganized militia. (Title 10, Section 311)
Common law: Justice Taney held in “Dred Scott” that persons of African heritage could have no standing in the court.
In all cases the executive acting within his legitimate powers has authority to act under his best understanding of the law. His understanding is subject to review, by a judge in a particular case, or by appeal.
Any definition of any legal term is given in legislative law and constituional law by other legal terms. In common law, the definition is given in more concrete terms.
Example: A person is accused of grand theft, in that he stole a very nice and expensive chair. In Case 1, on appeal, the appeals court held that the value of the chair did not meet the legal definition of grand theft. In Case 2, a somewhat nicer and more expensive chair was held to meet the definition of grand theft.
The judge must, with that information, attempt to decide, for the case at hand whether the chair that is alleged to have been stolen, more closely resembles case 1 or case 2.
While a judge can be wrong, the defendent has an option to appeal.
Where appellate judges are wrong, the legislature can rewrite the law to give added guidance. The Executive has a power to pardon, which may also correct judicial error.
Where laws forbid proscribe punishment of behavior that should not be forbidden, or should not be punished, Attorneys General have a near absolute authority to exercise discretion. Usually there is plenty of work, so prosecutors may decide not to prosecute less important crimes or misdemeanors. On the otherhand, to obtain political advantage, a prosecutor may decide to prosecute even when there is no crime. The latter prosecutor should expect to be punished either by the court, or by a voting public.
In the case of bad law, a jury, or any member of the jury may decide to vote against a guilty verdict. This is called Jury nullification.
Jury Foreman: We find the accused not guilty of cattle rustling if he gives back the cows.
Judge: You can’t find that. If he took the cows, you must find him guilty.
Jury Foreman: Not Guilty of cattle rustling, and he can keep the cows.
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.