Posted on 02/01/2002 1:42:15 PM PST by Jeff Smith
That's why I cleverly asked for "mobile guns".
There were only three ships involved in the Fort Sumter expedition. 285 guns seems like a lot, is all. :)
Walt
No. What I've said is you offer nothing to back up your claims that I am a racist. Also, I have repeatedly asked you to show where I've "adopted the jargon" of the Confederacy, or have defended the reasons they gave for secession. I've asked and you can't back it up.
Of course, I could post ipse dixit followed by ipse dixit, and dismiss all authority, without actually dealing with the merits of their arguments. That is the argument styles of a fundamentalist, a Taliban, or a racist. Since you use the style, I'll let others draw what conclusions they may.
Now I'm similar to the Taliban in addition to being a racist. And don't deny calling me a racist; your own words contradict your false denial.
To know the "law" about the Civil War, one must look at the facts in a changing society, instead of clinging to worn-out slogans and formulas, which is all that you offer as analysis.
Hello, moron. You don't even know the English language. If I were you I'd try correcting that problem before tackling law and history. Show me the worn-out slogans that I am allegedly using. You can't because you are a liar.
[LincolnDefender's] version of history is not based on fact.Broadly stated, I agree. True history is based upon the inferences one draws, the patterns one sees.
No, history is a collection of known facts. All else is inference and opinion which can sometimes be backed up with facts, and sometimes not.
The rest of your diatribe is too nonsensical to warrant wasting my time in response.
You respond: Your posts are nothing more or less than general quotations about government or interesting but unimportant facts, such as the timing of changes to the text of the Constitution. It is absolutely absurd, for example, to argue that the names of the states appearing in some draft of the preamble if of meaning or that the change was made by the committee on "style." You are doing nothing more or less than projecting your prejudice onto the text. Who knows; maybe the "committee on style" was stacked, or paper was short and they finally got around to making the change.
What is absurd is that you directed this to me, since I wasn't the one who posted it. Besides, if you've ever studied the Constitution you would know that there were many revisions; the Freeper posted the most likely explanation for this particular change. Again, show me the worn-out slogans I repeat, or drop this garbage.
You continue your blathering: Your noble right (to leave the Union to own slaves and for no other purpose)is not in the document.
You stated in another reply to me that the Constitution "expressly states" that secession is not legal, but provided no citation for that claim. FYI, no one on this thread will support that, because it simply is not "expressly" stated (the word you were looking for is 'explicitly'). Again, I argue that states had the right to secession; I'm not arguing the justification of doing so. The fact that three states reserved that right while ratifying the document, coupled with the Congress' failure to respond, gives my argument credence, while your's is simply delusional fantasy.
You then insult the memory of the greatest of Americans with this tripe: We do know that Washington, Hamilton and others plotted for a strong union, their plan was to end "states rights," they even acted in secret. It therefore should come as no surprise that they avoided the issue, directly, did not tip their hand, and did what is apparent to all--left the question for decision at the moment of its appearance.
First of all, Washington did not "plot" anything. He was a man of honor and integrity, and if you've studied him you would know that he abhorred plotters. Secondly, they didn't ignore the issue; as you know three state delegations included a clause in their ratification documents reserving the right. You can't ignore or get around that fact.
You continue: When the issue did appear, America's greatest President made the correct decision. No plausible argument exits that he could not preserve the Union or that We or the World would be a better place had events turnout otherwise.
First of all, Washington and Reagan never made decisions regarding secession. So, if you're referring to Lincoln, he could not rely on law and precedent for an argument, so he relied on the emotional impact of the flag being fired upon.
Then we have the crux of your belief: What is plain is that southern fundamentalism attempted to defeat Modernity, democracy and freedom but did not, because the Union prevailed.
You spout Modernity, democracy and freedom as your criteria for righteousness, and on other replies you've stated that the American Indians are "morally repugnant" for resisting them. First of all, they weren't resisting three abstract ideas; they were resisting foreigners encroaching on their land and way of life.
More importantly, as you've said before we should look at the motives behind peoples' beliefs. You cite the three-above mentioned criteria. As you've stated before, it is morally justified to kill those who refuse to abide. I find it interesting that you chose three criteria that point to white people from western Europe and the U.S. Could you have a hidden motive for wanting to kill the others? These are your beliefs, not mine.
The fact you say GW's terms in office didn't present the challenges faced by Lincoln and FDR show you to be completely ignorant of that phase of our nation's history. It would be laughable if it weren't so damn blasphemous. Turning over power to a successor voluntarily (the first time ever in history other than monarchical succession) is said by some to be the greatest act committed by any president.
Lincoln dealt from a position of power in a situation that he chose to deal with (he chose to keep the South in the Union). FDR never resolved the depression, and his handling of the war, while admirable, was nothing that almost any other president wouldn't have done.
How can you rate Jefferson in the top 5? He is by far one of the most overrated Americans of all time. He did nothing as president. When the British were impressing our sailors (that means kidnapping and pressing them into service in the British Navy, not showing off and making them say "ooh, ahh"), Jefferson was wandering around D.C. recording the prices of fresh fruits and vegetables. The Louisiana Purchase was a no-brainer (doubling the size of the country for 3 cents an acre while getting the French off of our western border; Napolean was desperate to sell in order to finance his activities). He even admitted to being a failure as Governonr of Virginia. In short, he was not a good politician, other than creating the factional disputes that Washington warned us against.
And, finally, your rating of Reagan is mind-boggling. Were you alive in the late '70's? He took a country with low morale, a devastated economy, and an emasculated military (no offense to those who were serving, but rather to the politicians who did it), and turned us back on the course of greatness. The fact that the Cold War ended in the manner it did is 98% the work of Mr. Reagan. He was an original thinker, and more importantly, knew when and from whom to borrow other ideas, and turned the world from a path of totalitarianism onto a path of freedom.
Wilson was too much of an academician to be effective; T. Roosevelt approached greatness and may have even achieved it (that depends on which historians you listen to). Truman wasn't a horrible president but did allow the "containment policy" garbage to get going, which allowed the Soviets anything they wanted. They took more land and people with each passing decade until Mr. Reagan came on the scene.
I think its very telling that you love FDR. He was either a Soviet sympathizer or an imbecile, eveidenced by the fact that he surrounded himself with pro-Soviet aides. Harry Hopkins, for example, was suspected of being an agent of Soviet influence for years, and then, when the Venona files were made available, it was proven. He and his handlers were named, his activities outlined, and his agent number was even revealed. Hopkins was FDR's most trusted confidante. Dozens of State Department officials were also of the same ilk.
Given your belief in killing off people who's societies don't conform to your ideals, I think its only appropriate that you would support the most pro-Soviet president this country has seen.
Oh, he was much worse. He was the lifelong admirer of a Confederate flag waving Dixiecrat and racial bigot.
Romerstein’s more controversial charge is that Harry Hopkins, FDR’s most trusted adviser, was also a Soviet spy. Romerstein details Hopkins’ pro-Soviet activities, including his efforts to get the Soviets materials for manufacturing an atomic bomb, his hiring of a Communist as general counsel to the Federal Employment Relief Administration (later the Works Progress Administration), his stunning efforts–in line with Stalin’s desires–to torpedo assistance to the Polish underground Home Army as it rose to resist the Nazi occupation, his undermining of the demands by anti-Communist Poles for free elections, and so on, ad nauseam.In the early 1960s, Oleg Gordievsky, a KGB officer who aided British intelligence for ten years before his defection, attended a lecture by Iskhak Akhmerov, who headed a super-sensitive "illegal" Soviet intelligence operation in the United States. The Soviets distinguished between "legal" and "illegal" intelligence operations. Illegal intelligence officers such as Akhmerov had false identities, worked with only the most secret Soviet agents and took pains to conceal the fact that they were even Soviets from those who might know them in their cover roles.
Akhmerov mentioned his contact with Alger Hiss, but Gordievsky said he described Hopkins as "the most important of all Soviet wartime agents in the United States." Gordievsky discussed Akhmerov’s revelations with both British and U.S. intelligence officials (as well as with Romerstein himself), but British historian Christopher Andrew toned down this charge and accused Hopkins of just being "an unconscious . . . agent."
Romerstein dismisses the word "unconscious" as an absurd notion, and stresses that even such an exalted American figure as Hopkins–unless he was a Soviet agent himself–would not have been allowed to meet regularly with Akhmerov, a high-powered illegal operative whose activities the Soviets zealously sought to conceal.
More evidence abounds. A Venona document signed by Akhmerov reveals that Soviet agent "19" reported directly to Akhmerov on discussions he was privy to between Churchill and Roosevelt. Eduard Mark, a military historian, after thoroughly scrutinizing the Venona files and U.S. archives, concludes that agent "l9" could have been only one man–Hopkins. From www.humanevents.org/articles/01-29-01/ryskind.html
I know Eduard Mark from my days working at the National Archives, and he is nothing if not a careful, thorough, and honest historian. But, the point of my original statement is that FDR's administration was riddled with Soviet sympathizers. Its very telling that you would defend him, knowing, as you should, that he was nothing short of a 'useful idiot.' From the very link you had in a previous reply:
Lauchlin Currie, senior White House aide to FDR, who alerted the NKVD (Soviet intelligence) to FBI investigations of its top agents.
Alger Hiss, chief of the State Department’s Office of Special Political Affairs, who accompanied Roosevelt to Yalta in 1945 and chaired the founding conference of the UN. This senior assistant to the secretary of state gave Soviet military intelligence diplomatic cables concerning Axis threats to Soviet security.
Laurence Duggan, head of the State Department’s Division of American Republics and the secretary of state’s personal adviser for Latin America, who gave the NKVD Anglo-American plans for the invasion of Italy.
Michael Straight, a family friend and protege of President and Mrs. Roosevelt who was recruited into the NKVD by Soviet spy Anthony Blunt while attending Cambridge University.
Harry Dexter White, assistant secretary of the Treasury, U.S. director of the IMF, senior adviser to the American delegation at the founding conference of the UN, who facilitated employment for Soviet sources in his department.
Harold Glasser, vice-chairman of the War Production Board and assistant director of the Treasury’s Office of International Finance, who gave the NKVD a State Department analysis of Soviet war losses.
Gregory Silvermaster, a Treasury economist whose spy network provided Moscow with prodigious amounts of War Production Board data on arms, aircraft, and shipping production.
Victor Perlo, chief of the Aviation Section of the War Production Board whose spy ring supplied the Soviets with aircraft production figures and included a Senate staff director.
Judith Coplon, Justice Department analyst who alerted Moscow to FBI counterintelligence operations.
Given your belief in killing off people who's societies don't conform to your ideals, I think its only appropriate that you would support the most pro-Soviet president this country has seen.
If you were intelligent and/or academically honest, you would have realized that the main points I was making are what I have bolded in the above quote from my reply to you that started this tangent we are now on. I notice you don't deny that FDR surrounded himself with, and the State Department was infested with, Soviet sympathizers and agents. Read the list of people who worked in the White House that he chose to work with in my previous reply. You also don't deny the last sentence regarding my theory as to why you admire FDR.
Regardless of whether you believe Eduard Mark or not, I'll take his word over your's because I've talked to the man and helped provide him with records at the National Archives and know him to be honest and sane (two traits I can't vouch for in you). I didn't go online to read the Venona Files (I don't even know if I believe you that they are available online since I haven't taken the time to really look); I simply pulled a WhiskeyPapa and did a Google search and clicked on two links at random, and they both mention Harry Hopkins as an agent. You can deny all you want, but I find it interesting that you don't get upset when I discuss your reasons for explaining away the morality of killing groups of people who are different than you. And that is why you admire the most pro-Soviet president this country has ever seen.
|
|
|||
Gods |
Note: this topic is from 2/01/2002. Blast from the Past. |
||
|
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
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.