Discussion:
The morality of theft or breaking and entering online (was Phil and netcopping)
(too old to reply)
Alfred Montestruc
2005-07-21 03:35:01 UTC
Permalink
Has anyone else noticed that Phil never did figure out what happened?
At various points he's been attributing Carlos powers that border on
the mystical. And then of course, there's stuff like "The idea that
someone is loose on the net hacking private email accounts could be,
given the level of paranoia rampant in some parts of the US government
at present, deemed a "threat to national security.""
What. Is the capital. Of Italy.
Is rolling a drunk for his wallet stealing?

Is taking candy from a baby stealing?

Is using a key found under a welcome mat to open a lock and take
property from that building (that is not yours and you have no right to
be in) stealing?

Is taking someone's car who left the keys in it stealing?


Last I heard, all the above are stealing, and if anything more
reprehensible, and less honorable for taking advantage of someone
else's weakness.
Phil set up a sock puppet that a child could see through.
Which by the way is not criminal, an need not even be unethical. So
what?
Posted only
to threads he was posting to as himself; posted only to agree with
himself. Posted on the same server paths, with time stamps bracketing
his posts as himself. Yet insisted that he was really "Reggie Dee",
contract miner from Perth.
Can you prove that "Reggie Dee" does not exist other than by
Phil's say so?
But he never noticed that his sock puppet account was unsecure --
obviously, glaringly, ridiculously insecure. Still didn't spot the
security flaw after it had been made clear that it wasn't secure. He's
been sitting around for over a year, utterly baffled, making up stories
to himself about Carlos' 31337 hakin6 skillz.
What /is/ the capital of Italy?
His answer, for the last 13 months? "I'm a victim! A victim!"
You know what? We're going to be hearing about this for years to come.
Phil does hate to look stupid. It was bad enough when he was just
confused and baffled, but now that he's been humiliated... I doubt
he'll ever, ever be able to let it go.
...and he never figured it out.
That is, for me, the second funniest part of this whole affair.
Doug M.
Which proves that you, like Coyu, are trash.
l***@hotmail.com
2005-07-21 05:02:16 UTC
Permalink
Gee Al, multiplying off-topic threads in order to further smear shit
around the group! Goes to show how much you care about newsgroup health
and on-topicality.
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Which proves that you, like Coyu, are trash.
No, a man that writes apologias and paens to a government that
glorified the subjigation and ownership of other men based on the color
of their skin while claiming to be a libertarian is trash.
No, trash isn't low enough, because trash can't help but be trash. You
are a hypocritical piece of distended pig rectum, with your head shoved
so far up your ass that you can see the beginnings of the colon polyps
that will hopefully develop into cancer and end your miserable
existance on this earth.
Compared to you, hackers are about as bad as jaywalkers. Kevin Mitnick
and Kevin Poulson are but thieves and catburglers. You on the other
hand are an apologist for decades of chains and whips, beatings in the
feilds, masters forcing themselves on the girls in the sleeping
quarters and countless other offenses.
Why?
Because you have a deranged political hobbyhorse you like to trot out
online.
I don't like Phil, but I just think he's a prick and an ass. I don't
wish ill on him. I just wish he'd go someplace else, so I can read
threads without the monthly tempest in a teapot because he thinks he's
an innocent abused. You on the other hand sicken me, and I know I'm not
alone.

To everyone, I apologize for this. I know I should not respond to these
kinds of messages and hurt the signal to noise ratio. I'm willing to
take whatever punishment you feel is necessary, be it finishing that
DoD guest installment, finishing that TL I started five years ago and
did three chapters of, or posting the outline notes for my alt.hist
graphic novel project.
It's just the last time someone irritated me so bad was someone else
who most of the long-timers remember. Chalk it up the combination of
work-deadlines, writer's bloc and the lack of intellectual company and
challenge that summer brings to in-state grad students.

ObWI: Mad King Ludwig born completely and utterly sane, with a passion
for economics rather than art. Knock on effects to Bavaria, besides
losing all those nifty castles?
Alfred Montestruc
2005-07-21 06:06:12 UTC
Permalink
***@hotmail.com wrote:
----snip bs
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Which proves that you, like Coyu, are trash.
No,
yes -- and you too

---snip BS
l***@hotmail.com
2005-07-21 06:33:51 UTC
Permalink
If you don't have any way to reply to the fact that you are a piece of
racist hypocritical filth, then at least have the self-dignity to
pretend you didn't see me calling you out on it.
I suppose it is BS if you are able to justify ownership of another
human under aegis of "liberty" like you are, pig rectum.
Hey Phil. You really want a guy like this to stand up for you?
Alfred Montestruc
2005-07-21 07:13:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@hotmail.com
If you don't have any way to reply to the fact that you are a piece of
racist hypocritical filth,
Child if you think I am a racist, then you would not know a racist from
fire hydrant.

Being against the needless killing of 620,000 americans does not make
me a racist. Neither does being against a dictator that threw hundreds
of newspaper editors in jail from printing opinions he did not like,
and also numerous elected political figures including congressmen,
legislators, and mayors, because they did not agree with him. Along
with starting a pointless war that killed more americans than any other
american war, and almost as many as all other american wars put
together.

If you want to see hypocracy, look in the mirror.

Breaking into other people's private property where they have committed
no crime, and no one is going to die becuase you do not, is always
wrong.
Mike Stone
2005-07-21 07:49:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Being against the needless killing of 620,000 americans does not make
me a racist. Neither does being against a dictator that threw hundreds
of newspaper editors in jail from printing opinions he did not like,
and also numerous elected political figures including congressmen,
legislators, and mayors, because they did not agree with him. Along
with starting a pointless war that killed more americans than any other
american war, and almost as many as all other american wars put
together.
Er, "started"?

I don't recall Ft Sumter bombarding Charleston. ~ always thought it was the
other way round.


--


Mike Stone - Peterborough, England

Seeking the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and
everything is not a task for cowards.

It is essential to show some forty-twode
Alfred Montestruc
2005-07-22 01:03:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Stone
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Being against the needless killing of 620,000 americans does not make
me a racist. Neither does being against a dictator that threw hundreds
of newspaper editors in jail from printing opinions he did not like,
and also numerous elected political figures including congressmen,
legislators, and mayors, because they did not agree with him. Along
with starting a pointless war that killed more americans than any other
american war, and almost as many as all other american wars put
together.
Er, "started"?
I don't recall Ft Sumter bombarding Charleston. ~ always thought it was the
other way round.
So if after WWII, say the USA asserted that it had sovereignty/dominion
over all of Britain, and held on to airbases even after the British
government told them to get the hell out of it.

So if the British used armed force to run the US Airforce out of an
Airbase in Britain after the USA refused to leave, it would be the
British that started the war where the USA invades Britain and burns
down many cities and kills a large fraction of the population, right?
Juan Valdez
2005-07-22 01:42:55 UTC
Permalink
[snip Lincoln slander]
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Post by Mike Stone
Er, "started"?
I don't recall Ft Sumter bombarding Charleston. ~ always thought it was the
other way round.
So if after WWII, say the USA asserted that it had sovereignty/dominion
over all of Britain, and held on to airbases even after the British
government told them to get the hell out of it.
Why do you tend to switch from facts to sloppy analogies? It doesn't
fool anyone... though it makes a fool of one.

Try harder.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Alfred Montestruc
2005-07-22 04:35:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Juan Valdez
[snip Lincoln slander]
What was not true about it. To be slander it must be false.
Post by Juan Valdez
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Post by Mike Stone
Er, "started"?
I don't recall Ft Sumter bombarding Charleston. ~ always thought it was the
other way round.
So if after WWII, say the USA asserted that it had sovereignty/dominion
over all of Britain, and held on to airbases even after the British
government told them to get the hell out of it.
Why do you tend to switch from facts to sloppy analogies?
I note neither he nor you want to answer that.
l***@hotmail.com
2005-07-22 05:54:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alfred Montestruc
I note neither he nor you want to answer that.
And I note that you never answered Mike Stone's.

Why should anyone take anything that comes out of your hate-filled
little spithole seriously, Al? You are a human joke, a relic of a world
almost 50 years dead. No one respects you. The best your opinions can
do is inspire laughter.

That you are a dishonest debater is only a cherry on top the cake.
Alfred Montestruc
2005-07-24 00:00:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Post by Alfred Montestruc
I note neither he nor you want to answer that.
And I note that you never answered Mike Stone's.
That is not true. I did.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Why should anyone take anything that comes out of your hate-filled
little spithole seriously, Al?
If you want to talk about "hate filled" people, take a look in the
mirror.


--snip
l***@hotmail.com
2005-07-24 00:30:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alfred Montestruc
That is not true. I did.
Psh, what you did wouldn't even be called moving the goalposts. It's
more like trying to play rugby when everyone else is playing soccer.
Post by Alfred Montestruc
If you want to talk about "hate filled" people, take a look in the
mirror.
In most circles thinking lying hypocritical crypto-racists like you are
scum is a common enough feeling. I feel as much guilt for despising you
as I would for hating a KKK member or Neo-nazi, only I respect them for
being honest about their hate. You don't even have the courage for
that, you puffed up loser.
I might change that estimation of you if you go and preach the justice
of your views on a street corner in say Harlem or Compton. I'm sure
you'll be treated with what your views deserve there, but at least I
couldn't call you a coward. Unless of course you refuse to do that
because you know how odious your views are and how they would be
recieved by the masses if you were open about it, you turd.
Being filled with hate for you is a badge of honor, because it's not
about what color your skin is or where you live or who your ancestors
are. It's about the content of your character, which by your own choice
is worthless. I look into the mirror and feel pride.
Alfred Montestruc
2005-07-24 00:42:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Post by Alfred Montestruc
That is not true. I did.
Psh, what you did wouldn't even be called moving the goalposts. It's
more like trying to play rugby when everyone else is playing soccer.
Post by Alfred Montestruc
If you want to talk about "hate filled" people, take a look in the
mirror.
In most circles
Of idiots perhaps.
l***@hotmail.com
2005-07-24 05:35:27 UTC
Permalink
Whatever.
I've made my point which was to expose you as an apologist for slavery,
which had been getting rather forgotten lately. Enjoy debating the
simps and rejects, Al. You deserve them more than they deserve you.
I'll grant you this. You're a lot less entertaining to bate than Phil,
but you're a whole lot more slimy.
Seeya in the funnypages, dumbass.
a***@pacific.net.au
2005-07-24 09:29:44 UTC
Permalink
On 23 Jul 2005 17:42:26 -0700, "Alfred Montestruc"
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Post by l***@hotmail.com
In most circles
Of idiots perhaps.
Yep. The idiots on this group do a good job of ranting around in
circles and Mr lautreamontg is doing his best to emulate them.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU), RBB #1 (FASA), Road to Armageddon (PGD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au
Daniel Silevitch
2005-07-22 01:45:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Post by Mike Stone
I don't recall Ft Sumter bombarding Charleston. ~ always thought it was the
other way round.
So if after WWII, say the USA asserted that it had sovereignty/dominion
over all of Britain, and held on to airbases even after the British
government told them to get the hell out of it.
Last time I checked, Britain was a sovereign country. If, as you posit,
we were living in a timeline where Anglophonistan existed and the island
of Airstrip One wanted out, I would fully expect the central government
to forcefully disagree.
Post by Alfred Montestruc
So if the British used armed force to run the US Airforce out of an
Airbase in Britain after the USA refused to leave, it would be the
British that started the war where the USA invades Britain and burns
down many cities and kills a large fraction of the population, right?
Yes.

The side that starts a war is not necessarily the side that finishes it.
Note, for example, OTL WWII. The Axis started the war, a fact that
doesn't go away just because of Dresden and Hiroshima.

But since you live in neo-Confederate-bizarro-world, where everything
the USA did is bad and everything the CSA did was Just and Good, there's
no real point in having an actual discussion. I write this reply for the
record, and for the benefit of those few innocent souls who have so far
escaped contact with your nonsense.

ObWI: During the Bismarck's maiden WWII voyage, the initial encounter
with HMS Hood and Prince of Wales does not result in a lucky shot
sinking the Hood. Bismarck takes some damage, but manages to break
contact with the British ships. Does the RN pursue with the same
full-bore intensity as OTL? If Bismarck makes it back to port, what
effect on the development of the naval war?

-dms
Alfred Montestruc
2005-07-22 04:39:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel Silevitch
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Post by Mike Stone
I don't recall Ft Sumter bombarding Charleston. ~ always thought it was the
other way round.
So if after WWII, say the USA asserted that it had sovereignty/dominion
over all of Britain, and held on to airbases even after the British
government told them to get the hell out of it.
Last time I checked, Britain was a sovereign country.
So was South Carolina. Read the 1783 treaty of Paris sometime.
Post by Daniel Silevitch
If, as you posit,
we were living in a timeline where Anglophonistan existed and the island
of Airstrip One wanted out, I would fully expect the central government
to forcefully disagree.
Post by Alfred Montestruc
So if the British used armed force to run the US Airforce out of an
Airbase in Britain after the USA refused to leave, it would be the
British that started the war where the USA invades Britain and burns
down many cities and kills a large fraction of the population, right?
Yes.
I see. So is it OK to start a war in that case? As in the other side
is occupying land belonging to your nation after they are no longer
welcome?
Post by Daniel Silevitch
The side that starts a war is not necessarily the side that finishes it.
Note, for example, OTL WWII. The Axis started the war, a fact that
doesn't go away just because of Dresden and Hiroshima.
But since you live in neo-Confederate-bizarro-world, where everything
the USA did is bad and everything the CSA did was Just and Good,
Nope.

snip
Mike Stone
2005-07-22 06:41:49 UTC
Permalink
Alfred Montestruc Jul 22, 12:39 am
Post by Alfred Montestruc
I see. So is it OK to start a war in that case? As in the other side
is occupying land belonging to your nation after they are no longer
welcome?
How did Ft Sumter "belong" to SC? It had been ceded to the US a
generation earlier, and was no more part of SC than the city of
Washington was part of Maryland. Even if secession were valid, it would
have no affect on the fort's status.

Of course, if as an "independent" country SC decides that it _needs_ Ft
Sumter back, it may exercise its sovereign power to take it back by
force. But that is an act of _war_, and in those circumstances SC (and
any other states which may take its part) has no right to complain if
it ends up _losing_ the war. That's a chance you take whenever you wage
it.

A good parallel might be Danzig in 1939. It did not belong to Germany
since 1919, and most Germans (not just Hitler though his attitude
counted for more than most) believed that it _should_ belong to Germany
- so they resorted to war in order to get it back. Was it then unjust
that Germany was a pile of rubble in 1945? Not that I can see. They
appealed to force, and they ended up getting the worst of it. Tough
titty.

--


Mike Stone - Peterborough, England


Seeking the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and
everything is not a task for cowards.


It is essential to show some forty-twode
Alfred Montestruc
2005-07-24 00:12:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Stone
Alfred Montestruc Jul 22, 12:39 am
Post by Alfred Montestruc
I see. So is it OK to start a war in that case? As in the other side
is occupying land belonging to your nation after they are no longer
welcome?
How did Ft Sumter "belong" to SC? It had been ceded to the US a
generation earlier, and was no more part of SC than the city of
Washington was part of Maryland. Even if secession were valid, it would
have no affect on the fort's status.
You are mistaken it directly affects the fort's status. The federal
government is owned by the people of the USA, the property of the
federal government is held in trust for the people of the US. All
rights are rights of people, organizations only have rights held in
trust for individuals.

The property rights of the people of South Carolina did not end with
secession, thus they were entitled to a share of federal property and
that would necessaraly include items such as that fort that were
intended for their use and useless otherwise.
Mike Stone
2005-07-24 07:22:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Post by Mike Stone
Alfred Montestruc Jul 22, 12:39 am
Post by Alfred Montestruc
I see. So is it OK to start a war in that case? As in the other side
is occupying land belonging to your nation after they are no longer
welcome?
How did Ft Sumter "belong" to SC? It had been ceded to the US a
generation earlier, and was no more part of SC than the city of
Washington was part of Maryland. Even if secession were valid, it would
have no affect on the fort's status.
You are mistaken it directly affects the fort's status. The federal
government is owned by the people of the USA, the property of the
federal government is held in trust for the people of the US. All
rights are rights of people, organizations only have rights held in
trust for individuals.
The property rights of the people of South Carolina did not end with
secession, thus they were entitled to a share of federal property and
that would necessaraly include items such as that fort that were
intended for their use and useless otherwise.
What has "property" to do with it? This was not a question of property but
of territorial _sovereignty_ - a sovereignty which had been ceded by SC to
the US government.

The Constitution (1st Article, 8th section, 17th para to be precise) is
perfectly clear. It gives Congress the exclusive power to legislate for
places acquired by the US, both to provide a seat of government, and "for
the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards and other needful
buildings". IOW, the State ceases to have authority there and only the
Federal Gov't has jurisdiction. So whatever the State does thereafter
(including secession from the Union, supposing that, for argument's sake, to
be itself lawful) has no effect whatsoever on the fort, because the state no
longer has jurisdiction there, any more than Maryland has in Washington DC.
Ther actions of SC had no more effect on Ft Sumter than those of the
Spanish Cortes have in Gibraltar, or those of the German Reichstag
(post-1919) in Danzig. Of course it could be retroceded, if _both_ parties
agreed, but it most certainly did not revert to SC on account of any
unilateral action by the latter.


--


Mike Stone - Peterborough, England

Seeking the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and
everything is not a task for cowards.

It is essential to show some forty-twode
Alfred Montestruc
2005-07-24 08:14:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Stone
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Post by Mike Stone
Alfred Montestruc Jul 22, 12:39 am
Post by Alfred Montestruc
I see. So is it OK to start a war in that case? As in the other side
is occupying land belonging to your nation after they are no longer
welcome?
How did Ft Sumter "belong" to SC? It had been ceded to the US a
generation earlier, and was no more part of SC than the city of
Washington was part of Maryland. Even if secession were valid, it would
have no affect on the fort's status.
You are mistaken it directly affects the fort's status. The federal
government is owned by the people of the USA, the property of the
federal government is held in trust for the people of the US. All
rights are rights of people, organizations only have rights held in
trust for individuals.
The property rights of the people of South Carolina did not end with
secession, thus they were entitled to a share of federal property and
that would necessaraly include items such as that fort that were
intended for their use and useless otherwise.
What has "property" to do with it? This was not a question of property but
of territorial _sovereignty_ - a sovereignty which had been ceded by SC to
the US government.
Which sovereignty is held in trust by governments for the people.
Sovereignty resides in the people not in the government, the government
is only deligated authority which can be undeligated.

I really do not care which way you want to put it, neither the federal,
nor the state governments have property rights or sovereignty of their
own. All is held in trust for the people to whom it belongs.

If the people of South Carolina (or any state) wanted to sever the
political ties between them and the USA, that is their right, and all
the real estate, and the sovereignty over it that was part of south
carolina, goes with them.
Post by Mike Stone
The Constitution (1st Article, 8th section, 17th para to be precise) is
perfectly clear. It gives Congress the exclusive power to legislate for
places acquired by the US, both to provide a seat of government, and "for
the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards and other needful
buildings". IOW, the State ceases to have authority there and only the
Federal Gov't has jurisdiction.
Still does not say the people of a state cannot seceed from the union
and take their play prettys with them.

If you go to play baseball with the kid next door, and the two of you
cannot agree about something, then he can kick you out of his dad's
backyard, and you can take the stuff you brought with you, however you
cannot take his glove, ball or bat because he agreed you could use it
while playing ball.

Much the same should apply to cricket if you do not get the baseball
references. Only problem with the real life case was that their were
no adults (in emotional maturity anyway) able to box the ears of the
brats in charge of both sides and send them to their rooms to stand in
the corner for few years.
Lyn David Thomas
2005-07-24 09:07:10 UTC
Permalink
On 24 Jul 2005 01:14:05 -0700
Post by Alfred Montestruc
If the people of South Carolina (or any state) wanted to sever the
political ties between them and the USA, that is their right, and all
the real estate, and the sovereignty over it that was part of south
carolina, goes with them.
I can not understand anyone having any sympathy for the southern
states, they were oppressive evil regimes by any standards, far worse
than anything in the north. OK I will grant you some of the legalisms
were not maintained, but the evil of the south far outweighed any other
consideration. These were as hateful as any fascist state.

Property is not the only liberty, the fact that people could be
considered to be property is nearly the ultimate evil.

Any thing else in this is just a justification of and utterly evil
system.

And this is all off topic so I'll shut up there.
Mike Stone
2005-07-24 09:48:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lyn David Thomas
I can not understand anyone having any sympathy for the southern
states, they were oppressive evil regimes by any standards, far worse
than anything in the north. OK I will grant you some of the legalisms
were not maintained, but the evil of the south far outweighed any other
consideration. These were as hateful as any fascist state.
Property is not the only liberty, the fact that people could be
considered to be property is nearly the ultimate evil.
No doubt, but irrelevant here as it was an evil recognised by the
Constitution, which recognition all the States, northern as well as
southern, agreed to when they formed the Union.

You cannot sign a contract with somebody, which both of you abide by for
years, and then turn round and say "I don't like the way he beats his wife
all the time, so I've decided to break the contract". This is especially so
when you not only knew him to be a wife-beater when you signed the original
contract, but even agreed to include a clause requiring you to return the
beaten wife to him if she ran away and turned up at your house.

But of course the reverse also holds. The other guy can't break the contract
because a Chairman of the board was elected whom he doesn't like; and he
certainly isn't entitled to help himself to whatever he deems to be "his"
share of the companty's assets, while threatening to shoot anyone who
interferes.


The Southerners were entitled to expect non-interference with slavery within
their borders (possibly also non-interference with the interstate slave
traffic, though I'm less sure of the constitutional position on that) and
the return of runaway slaves. These they got, the few northern states who
tried to nullify the latter right getting slapped down by the Supreme Court.
They were not entitled to insist that Kansas, say, had to be a slave state
(any more than northerners in 1820 could insist on Missouri being a free
one) nor that an opponent of slavery in the Territories must never be
elected President. And they cvertainly weren't entitled to unilatyerally
tear up _their_ Constitutional obligations and seize US fortresses at
gun-point.


--


Mike Stone - Peterborough, England

Seeking the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and
everything is not a task for cowards.

It is essential to show some forty-twode
Lyn David Thomas
2005-07-24 10:46:45 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 10:48:57 +0100
Post by Lyn David Thomas
I can not understand anyone having any sympathy for the southern
states, they were oppressive evil regimes by any standards, far
worse than anything in the north. OK I will grant you some of the
legalisms were not maintained, but the evil of the south far
outweighed any other consideration. These were as hateful as any
fascist state.
Property is not the only liberty, the fact that people could be
considered to be property is nearly the ultimate evil.
Yet nazi Germany was a constitutional state, all the actions were legal
by the internal standards of the state. Same with the south, but both
were evil states, whose reason to exist were both based on an evil
creed based on racial superiority. The USA was formed by
unconstitutional action, later legitimised by a treaty, after a war.
The southern rebellion can be seen in the same light.

What ever people claim about the legalities of the system the whole
thing started because of one sides desire to hang onto an evil system
regardless of the constitutional niceties of the issue.

Slavery was the core issue, there is no getting away from that.

Given what we know, I can't see why people act as appologists for the
south.
Mike Stone
2005-07-24 10:59:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lyn David Thomas
What ever people claim about the legalities of the system the whole
thing started because of one sides desire to hang onto an evil system
regardless of the constitutional niceties of the issue.
But an evil system which the constitutional niceties _entitled_ them to
keep - as long as _they_ stuck to the constitution themselves. Failing to
do so was their big blunder.
Post by Lyn David Thomas
Slavery was the core issue, there is no getting away from that.
Given what we know, I can't see why people act as appologists for the
south.
If you mean me, I don't recall being an apologist for the South. I certainly
regard secession as both (almost certainly) illegal and also crassly stupid.
As for Al, he seems to have convinced himself that they were legally
entitled not merely to secede (where there might at least be room for
argument) but to help themselves by military force to whatever they deemed
themselves entitled to. That seems to have been what they thought too, but
unfortunately for them others didn't see it that way.


--


Mike Stone - Peterborough, England

Seeking the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and
everything is not a task for cowards.

It is essential to show some forty-twode
Alfred Montestruc
2005-07-24 20:46:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Stone
Post by Lyn David Thomas
What ever people claim about the legalities of the system the whole
thing started because of one sides desire to hang onto an evil system
regardless of the constitutional niceties of the issue.
But an evil system which the constitutional niceties _entitled_ them to
keep - as long as _they_ stuck to the constitution themselves. Failing to
do so was their big blunder.
Post by Lyn David Thomas
Slavery was the core issue, there is no getting away from that.
Given what we know, I can't see why people act as appologists for the
south.
If you mean me, I don't recall being an apologist for the South. I certainly
regard secession as both (almost certainly) illegal and also crassly stupid.
As for Al, he seems to have convinced himself that they were legally
entitled not merely to secede (where there might at least be room for
argument) but to help themselves by military force to whatever they deemed
themselves entitled to.
When that property is intended to secure the city of Charleston from
attack by sea, and Lincoln is threatening war, and they had a
reasonable argument that the property belonged to the people of South
Carolina, then yes. If they had claimed West Point, that would be
absurd.
Lyn David Thomas
2005-07-25 05:40:45 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 11:59:18 +0100
Post by Mike Stone
Post by Lyn David Thomas
Given what we know, I can't see why people act as appologists for
the south.
If you mean me, I don't recall being an apologist for the South.
No I don't mean you Mike, and I apologise if I gave that impression.
a***@pacific.net.au
2005-07-24 12:24:54 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 11:46:45 +0100, Lyn David Thomas
Post by Lyn David Thomas
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 10:48:57 +0100
Yet nazi Germany was a constitutional state, all the actions were legal
by the internal standards of the state. Same with the south, but both
I believe that that is not entirely true. Much of what was done was
done extra-constitutionally and more was done in direct contravention
of German law.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU), RBB #1 (FASA), Road to Armageddon (PGD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au
mike
2005-07-24 12:52:43 UTC
Permalink
The USA was formed by unconstitutional action, later legitimised by
a treaty, after a war.
What 'Constitution' was in force, prior 1776?

Royal Charters were broken
The southern rebellion can be seen in the same light.
not really.

**
mike
**
Lyn David Thomas
2005-07-25 05:45:47 UTC
Permalink
On 24 Jul 2005 05:52:43 -0700
Post by mike
The USA was formed by unconstitutional action, later legitimised by
a treaty, after a war.
What 'Constitution' was in force, prior 1776?
That they were colonies of the the British empire.
Post by mike
Royal Charters were broken
Irrelevant, if parliamentary sanction was given.
Post by mike
The southern rebellion can be seen in the same light.
not really.
In the wider sense I think it can, both were illegal armed successions.
mike
2005-07-25 08:27:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lyn David Thomas
Post by mike
The USA was formed by unconstitutional action, later legitimised by
a treaty, after a war.
What 'Constitution' was in force, prior 1776?
That they were colonies of the the British empire.
So no Constitution, but:

Virginia: Corporate Colony(granted by Royal Charter)-->Royal Colony
in 1624

Maryland:Proprietary Colony, granted by Charles I in 1632

Massachusetts: Massachusetts Bay Charter, later Borged the Maine
and Plymouth Colonies, became a Royal Colony in 1691

New York:Proprietary Colony-->Reclaimed from the Dutch in 1664
by Charles II-->Royal Colony in 1685

Rhode Island: Corporate Colony, which it stayed.

Connecticut: Corporate Colony,-->Royal Charter in 1662

Delaware: more booty gained by Charles II
from the Dutch in 1664-->Proprietary Colony in 1682 to Penn, and split
off in 1704

New Hampshire: Proprietary Colony-->Royal Colony in 1679.

Pennsylvania:William Penn's Proprietary Colony, 1681

New Jersey:Proprietary Colony-->Royal Colony in 1702

North Carolina:Proprietary Colony-->Royal Charter in 1729 by Charles II

South Carolina:Proprietary Colony-->Royal Colony in 1729

Georgia:Proprietary Colony-->Royal Colony in 1752
Post by Lyn David Thomas
Post by mike
Royal Charters were broken
Irrelevant, if parliamentary sanction was given.
I'm not seeing much action by Parliament in creation, but handouts
from both Charles, and II's brother, the Duke of York.
Post by Lyn David Thomas
In the wider sense I think it can, both were illegal armed successions.
No, one was Treason against the Crown, the other Secession vs the
Union,which they could have tried in the Courts first to seperate,
but Cannonfire seemed like the way to go, the idiots.

The 13 Colonies didn't have a legal option.

**
mike
**
Lyn David Thomas
2005-07-25 19:55:37 UTC
Permalink
On 25 Jul 2005 01:27:32 -0700
Post by mike
The 13 Colonies didn't have a legal option.
I think they did, most of the demands were conceeded anyway, after all
(gross simplification alert) it was reasonable for them to pay for
their defense.

I don't disagree with their independence, (its a bit late for that),
Just I think the cause was overblown.

Incidentally one of my favourate films is 1776!

BTW I dislike any empire, or any state held by another, what is why I
am a member of the party that I am :-)
Doug Hoff
2005-07-26 04:12:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lyn David Thomas
On 25 Jul 2005 01:27:32 -0700
Post by mike
The 13 Colonies didn't have a legal option.
I think they did, most of the demands were conceeded anyway, after all
(gross simplification alert) it was reasonable for them to pay for
their defense.
I don't disagree with their independence, (its a bit late for that),
Just I think the cause was overblown.
The revolutionists were definitely a prickly bunch (god bless 'em), as any
reasonably objective history makes clear. It was as if the ACLU and the
National Rifle Association were running the government.
--
----------
Doug

Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.

Groucho Marx

***@gmail.com (take out x'es)

http://www.althist.com/homepage.htm
Alfred Montestruc
2005-07-29 06:28:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug Hoff
Post by Lyn David Thomas
On 25 Jul 2005 01:27:32 -0700
Post by mike
The 13 Colonies didn't have a legal option.
I think they did, most of the demands were conceeded anyway, after all
(gross simplification alert) it was reasonable for them to pay for
their defense.
I don't disagree with their independence, (its a bit late for that),
Just I think the cause was overblown.
The revolutionists were definitely a prickly bunch (god bless 'em), as any
reasonably objective history makes clear. It was as if the ACLU and the
National Rifle Association were running the government.
Like that was a bad thing.

The Horny Goat
2005-07-24 14:54:09 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 11:46:45 +0100, Lyn David Thomas
Post by Lyn David Thomas
Yet nazi Germany was a constitutional state, all the actions were legal
by the internal standards of the state. Same with the south, but both
Yep - this is why the Nazi-era rhetoric about their "seizure of power"
was so sadly funny. Hitler no more seized power than Tony Blair did.
Post by Lyn David Thomas
were evil states, whose reason to exist were both based on an evil
creed based on racial superiority. The USA was formed by
unconstitutional action, later legitimised by a treaty, after a war.
The southern rebellion can be seen in the same light.
Clearly if the rebellion had gone the other way that IS how it would
have been seen. Ovid ("Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?
Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason") said it right 2000+
years ago.

The Confederate states knew full well what they could expect if they
failed and frankly I think they got off relatively easy given the
death toll inflicted. Given the number of "easier Reconstruction" vs.
"harsher Reconstruction" scenarios discussed here I'd say most people
in SHWI agree.
Post by Lyn David Thomas
What ever people claim about the legalities of the system the whole
thing started because of one sides desire to hang onto an evil system
regardless of the constitutional niceties of the issue.
Slavery was the core issue, there is no getting away from that.
Given what we know, I can't see why people act as appologists for the
south.
My guess would be because there WERE other issues besides slavery and
with the benefit of 100 years to develop a selective memory it's
easier to accept a comfortable fiction than an uncomfortable reality.

I'm currently reading Liberia: Portrait of a Failed State by
John-Peter Pham and have found some interesting views of slavery and
Reconstruction. I'd recommend this book - I'm currently being blown
away by some of the things I didn't know about the regime of Charles
Taylor.
Alfred Montestruc
2005-07-24 20:21:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lyn David Thomas
On 24 Jul 2005 01:14:05 -0700
Post by Alfred Montestruc
If the people of South Carolina (or any state) wanted to sever the
political ties between them and the USA, that is their right, and all
the real estate, and the sovereignty over it that was part of south
carolina, goes with them.
I can not understand anyone having any sympathy for the southern
states, they were oppressive evil regimes by any standards,
Set next to what? The UK that while the colonies that became the US
were British set up the practice of slavery, and overruled attempts by
local legislatures (like that of Virginia) to outlaw the practice?
Post by Lyn David Thomas
far worse
than anything in the north.
Indians were treated vastly worse than blacks by both north and south.
While blacks in the south were held to labor, their death and birth
rates were not much different from those of white southerners. This
was not true of Indians.

Might I point out some interesting facts.

1.Many of the tribes in what became Oklahoma sided with the south and
provided troops against the US federal government, that fought in both
all Indian and mixed race confederate units.

2. No large-scale slave rebellions happened during the war, not even
when union armies were close and advancing. Yes some slaves ran away,
but no significant rebellions were seen in that most desperate time
when the slave owners were most vulnerable to such rebellions as most
of the men were away at war, dead or injured.

If as you say the southern states were such "oppressive evil regimes"
why were their no rebellions? Why did large numbers of Indians side
with them? Why did Lincoln find it needful to shut down hundreds of
newspapers, but Davis did not shut down one?

Some people point out slaves "joining" Union units, and forget to
mention that many of them were forced to at gunpoint.

http://www.civilwarhistory.com/slavetrade/blacksoldiersCSA.htm

---quote Article by Charles Rice, America's Civil War, November 1995--
Tens of thousands of black Southerners eventually served in the
Northern armies. The Emancipation Proclamation gave them a reason to do
so, though many did so clearly against their will. Union officers
sometimes rounded up recruits at the point of a bayonet, since
collecting the Federal bounty of $100 dollars for each man made this a
highly profitable sideline. On February 7, 1865, Lincoln personally
wrote to the army commander at Henderson, Ky., ordering him to stop
torturing black men to force them to enlist.
Six weeks earlier, Brig. Gen. Rugus Saxon had informed the War
Department of an even more shocking incident that occurred in South
Carolina when slaves were conscripted en masse. "The order spread
confusion and terror," wrote Saxon. "The Negroes fled to the woods and
swamps, visiting their cabins only by stealth and in darkness. They
were hunted to their hiding places by armed partied of their own
people, and if found, compelled to enlist." Three young men, one only
14, were seized while working in a field and sent to a distant regiment
without their parents even being informed. A black man who refused to
enlist was shot dead. Another man who worked for the army quartermaster
department was kidnapped and forced to join an infantry regiment.
--------------end quote------------
Post by Lyn David Thomas
OK I will grant you some of the legalisms
were not maintained, but the evil of the south far outweighed any other
consideration. These were as hateful as any fascist state.
Fascism has a clear and specific definition that the southern states do
not meet. They were democratic republics, not any kind of fascism.


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fascism
------------quote--
1 A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a
dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the
opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of
belligerent nationalism and racism.
2A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a
system of government.
----end quote---

What southern dictator? Southerners were politically very active and
voted. The south engaged in far less censorship than did the north
during the war. They closed no newspapers.

Lincoln meets the definition far better.
Post by Lyn David Thomas
Property is not the only liberty, the fact that people could be
considered to be property is nearly the ultimate evil.
Well I hope it makes you happy that the UK introduced that "ultimate
evil" to British North America at bayonet point, and made little or no
effort to end it in a peaceful manner, and cheerfully and greedily
profited at the expense of the black slave by using the products of his
labor even after the war (produce of Brazil and Cuba and other places).
Post by Lyn David Thomas
Any thing else in this is just a justification of and utterly evil
system.
And this is all off topic so I'll shut up there.
What about Coyu's breaking into other people's property and bragging
about it?

Care to elucidate your reasons why it is acceptable for people to
violate the rights of others as long as they agree with you?

In the first below post Coyu advocates ethnic cleansing of white
American southerners.

http://tinyurl.com/5fcza

In the below post Coyu brags about having broken into Phil McGregor's
private e-mail account and stolen data from his trash.

http://tinyurl.com/6lunc

In the below post Coyu admits to having broken into Phil McGregor's
private e-mail account and stolen data from his trash., and tries to
excuse his criminal acts by asserting the security was lax.

http://tinyurl.com/d4y55
Lyn David Thomas
2005-07-25 05:43:22 UTC
Permalink
On 24 Jul 2005 13:21:32 -0700
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Post by Lyn David Thomas
OK I will grant you some of the legalisms
were not maintained, but the evil of the south far outweighed any
other consideration. These were as hateful as any fascist state.
Fascism has a clear and specific definition that the southern states
do not meet. They were democratic republics, not any kind of fascism.
They were not democratic, as the franchise excluded people based on
their colour or gender. The franchise was not universal in any
meaninful sense
Alfred Montestruc
2005-07-26 06:07:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lyn David Thomas
On 24 Jul 2005 13:21:32 -0700
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Post by Lyn David Thomas
OK I will grant you some of the legalisms
were not maintained, but the evil of the south far outweighed any
other consideration. These were as hateful as any fascist state.
Fascism has a clear and specific definition that the southern states
do not meet. They were democratic republics, not any kind of fascism.
They were not democratic, as the franchise excluded people based on
their colour or gender.
Like the northern states did not? (Many if not all Northern states did
not allow Blacks (or Women or Indians) to vote in 1860.) Like the UK in
1860 did not?

Seriously did the UK in 1860 allow women to vote? How about men of
Indian extraction? How about men of African extraction? I know they
could not in British controlled South Africa, or India.

Like the UK in 1860 allowed Indians to have political control of their
own country?

If the Confederacy was "fascist" by that standard, so was pretty much
everyplace on earth. Is not using such a standard to argue the
Confederacy was "fascist" a more than a little bit hypocritical given
how the UK was behaving in that time period on that same subject?
Post by Lyn David Thomas
The franchise was not universal in any
meaningful sense
Like it is almost anywhere in the world even now!!

Children are not allowed to vote anywhere I know of, most nations do
not allow the mad to vote, most nations do not allow convicted prisoner
to vote, many if not most nations limit the right of convicted felons
to vote. Most nations do no allow non-citizens to vote.

Does that make them "fascist"?

Do you have any idea how ridiculously anachronistic your ideas on that
are, and how big of a double standard you are using?

Sheesh!! You are unbelievable!!
Lyn David Thomas
2005-07-26 07:02:14 UTC
Permalink
On 25 Jul 2005 23:07:53 -0700
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Post by Lyn David Thomas
On 24 Jul 2005 13:21:32 -0700
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Post by Lyn David Thomas
OK I will grant you some of the legalisms
were not maintained, but the evil of the south far outweighed
any other consideration. These were as hateful as any fascist
state.
Fascism has a clear and specific definition that the southern
states do not meet. They were democratic republics, not any kind
of fascism.
They were not democratic, as the franchise excluded people based on
their colour or gender.
Like the northern states did not? (Many if not all Northern states did
not allow Blacks (or Women or Indians) to vote in 1860.) Like the UK
in 1860 did not?
That is right, those places were not democracies either.
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Seriously did the UK in 1860 allow women to vote? How about men of
Indian extraction? How about men of African extraction? I know they
could not in British controlled South Africa, or India.
On the other hand there was no colour bar to men voting ever in
Britain.
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Like the UK in 1860 allowed Indians to have political control of their
own country?
No and that is wrong.
Post by Alfred Montestruc
If the Confederacy was "fascist" by that standard, so was pretty much
everyplace on earth. Is not using such a standard to argue the
Confederacy was "fascist" a more than a little bit hypocritical given
how the UK was behaving in that time period on that same subject?
IT wasn't promoting slavery - that is a difference.
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Post by Lyn David Thomas
The franchise was not universal in any
meaningful sense
Like it is almost anywhere in the world even now!!
Children are not allowed to vote anywhere I know of, most nations do
not allow the mad to vote, most nations do not allow convicted
prisoner to vote, many if not most nations limit the right of
convicted felons to vote. Most nations do no allow non-citizens to
vote.
In a democracy the right to vote is invested in everyone who has
reached the age of majority, temporary loss of civic rights, including
the right to vote if you are a fellon does not invalidate that
country's democratic status.
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Does that make them "fascist"?
No, but slavery and the promotion of slavery does tend in that
direction.
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Do you have any idea how ridiculously anachronistic your ideas on that
are, and how big of a double standard you are using?
Sheesh!! You are unbelievable!!
Lol no I am not, you can't be a democracy when the majority of the
adult population can't vote, its rather simple.
Alfred Montestruc
2005-07-28 00:07:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lyn David Thomas
On 25 Jul 2005 23:07:53 -0700
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Post by Lyn David Thomas
On 24 Jul 2005 13:21:32 -0700
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Post by Lyn David Thomas
OK I will grant you some of the legalisms
were not maintained, but the evil of the south far outweighed
any other consideration. These were as hateful as any fascist
state.
Fascism has a clear and specific definition that the southern
states do not meet. They were democratic republics, not any kind
of fascism.
They were not democratic, as the franchise excluded people based on
their colour or gender.
Like the northern states did not? (Many if not all Northern states did
not allow Blacks (or Women or Indians) to vote in 1860.) Like the UK
in 1860 did not?
That is right, those places were not democracies either.
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Seriously did the UK in 1860 allow women to vote? How about men of
Indian extraction? How about men of African extraction? I know they
could not in British controlled South Africa, or India.
On the other hand there was no colour bar to men voting ever in
Britain.
Ummm, I think you may be mistaken, hoevever be that as it may their was
a practical bar legal bar of some kind in that if there was not a legal
one, Indians could have ended the opression of India by moving large
numbers of Indians to the UK and voting that way. Need not even be a
large fraction of the population of the UK, just big enough to swing
elections. As I recall Indians could move to the UK to some extent at
least in the 19th century.
Post by Lyn David Thomas
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Like the UK in 1860 allowed Indians to have political control of their
own country?
No and that is wrong.
Post by Alfred Montestruc
If the Confederacy was "fascist" by that standard, so was pretty much
everyplace on earth. Is not using such a standard to argue the
Confederacy was "fascist" a more than a little bit hypocritical given
how the UK was behaving in that time period on that same subject?
IT wasn't promoting slavery - that is a difference.
Still not "fascist", arguably less so than Ancient Athens the home of
Democracy, which practiced chattle slavery.
Post by Lyn David Thomas
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Post by Lyn David Thomas
The franchise was not universal in any
meaningful sense
Like it is almost anywhere in the world even now!!
Children are not allowed to vote anywhere I know of, most nations do
not allow the mad to vote, most nations do not allow convicted
prisoner to vote, many if not most nations limit the right of
convicted felons to vote. Most nations do no allow non-citizens to
vote.
In a democracy the right to vote is invested in everyone who has
reached the age of majority, temporary loss of civic rights, including
the right to vote if you are a fellon does not invalidate that
country's democratic status.
You are splitting hairs. A limited franchise democracy is still a
democracy and not a fascism.
Post by Lyn David Thomas
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Does that make them "fascist"?
No, but slavery and the promotion of slavery does tend in that
direction.
I don't see that, and the slavery was of close to 200 years standing at
that time (slavery was initiated by the UK in North America in the mid
1600s). It was not a "trend" it was a long established fact of life in
that part of the US. Neither were they "promoting" slavery in any
meaningful sense (like trying to get others to do it as well), they
just did not want to be forced to end it.

In getting a junky to stop his addiction, a moralistic finger pointing,
threats and violent attacks on the junky as a method generally does not
work very well, and tends to result in violence in reply by the junky.
That junky analogy is not unreasonable in that a tolerence for slavery
was developed over time as the Royal government forced it to be legal,
and more and more people got economically involved in it.
Post by Lyn David Thomas
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Do you have any idea how ridiculously anachronistic your ideas on that
are, and how big of a double standard you are using?
Sheesh!! You are unbelievable!!
Lol no I am not, you can't be a democracy when the majority of the
adult population can't vote, its rather simple.
Then noplace on earth was a democracy in that era AFAIK. Women are the
majority of nearly all human populations and they could not vote then
anywhere I am aware of, so your standerd is absurd and cannot be met by
any society in that era.
Lyn David Thomas
2005-07-28 07:39:28 UTC
Permalink
On 27 Jul 2005 17:07:24 -0700
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Post by Lyn David Thomas
On 25 Jul 2005 23:07:53 -0700
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Post by Lyn David Thomas
On 24 Jul 2005 13:21:32 -0700
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Post by Lyn David Thomas
OK I will grant you some of the legalisms
were not maintained, but the evil of the south far outweighed
any other consideration. These were as hateful as any fascist
state.
Fascism has a clear and specific definition that the southern
states do not meet. They were democratic republics, not any kind
of fascism.
They were not democratic, as the franchise excluded people based on
their colour or gender.
Like the northern states did not? (Many if not all Northern states did
not allow Blacks (or Women or Indians) to vote in 1860.) Like the UK
in 1860 did not?
That is right, those places were not democracies either.
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Seriously did the UK in 1860 allow women to vote? How about men of
Indian extraction? How about men of African extraction? I know they
could not in British controlled South Africa, or India.
On the other hand there was no colour bar to men voting ever in
Britain.
Ummm, I think you may be mistaken,
No I am not.
Post by Alfred Montestruc
hoevever be that as it may their was
a practical bar legal bar of some kind in that if there was not a legal
one,
Again there wasn't.
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Indians could have ended the opression of India by moving large
numbers of Indians to the UK and voting that way. Need not even be a
large fraction of the population of the UK, just big enough to swing
elections. As I recall Indians could move to the UK to some extent at
least in the 19th century.
And we had Indian MPs quite early on.
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Post by Lyn David Thomas
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Like the UK in 1860 allowed Indians to have political control of their
own country?
No and that is wrong.
Post by Alfred Montestruc
If the Confederacy was "fascist" by that standard, so was pretty much
everyplace on earth. Is not using such a standard to argue the
Confederacy was "fascist" a more than a little bit hypocritical given
how the UK was behaving in that time period on that same subject?
IT wasn't promoting slavery - that is a difference.
Still not "fascist", arguably less so than Ancient Athens the home of
Democracy, which practiced chattle slavery.
Athens was not a democracy, not by any modern understanding of that
word, it can't be when over half the adult population couldn't vote.
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Post by Lyn David Thomas
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Post by Lyn David Thomas
The franchise was not universal in any
meaningful sense
Like it is almost anywhere in the world even now!!
Children are not allowed to vote anywhere I know of, most nations do
not allow the mad to vote, most nations do not allow convicted
prisoner to vote, many if not most nations limit the right of
convicted felons to vote. Most nations do no allow non-citizens to
vote.
In a democracy the right to vote is invested in everyone who has
reached the age of majority, temporary loss of civic rights, including
the right to vote if you are a fellon does not invalidate that
country's democratic status.
You are splitting hairs. A limited franchise democracy is still a
democracy and not a fascism.
A limited Franchise to the extent that you state is not a democracy. It
can't be a democracy when the majority of people (men and women) are
disenfranchied. No state the denies women the vote can be a democracy.
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Post by Lyn David Thomas
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Does that make them "fascist"?
No, but slavery and the promotion of slavery does tend in that
direction.
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Sheesh!! You are unbelievable!!
Lol no I am not, you can't be a democracy when the majority of the
adult population can't vote, its rather simple.
Then noplace on earth was a democracy in that era AFAIK. Women are the
majority of nearly all human populations and they could not vote then
anywhere I am aware of, so your standerd is absurd and cannot be met by
any society in that era.
Indeed - they were not true democracies.

They were moving in the direction of democracy but were not democratic
states. I suppose it depends on your world view, are women people on
the same basis as men, or strange creatures some how not really of equal
worth.
The Horny Goat
2005-07-29 03:26:33 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 07:39:28 +0000, Lyn David Thomas
Post by Lyn David Thomas
A limited Franchise to the extent that you state is not a democracy. It
can't be a democracy when the majority of people (men and women) are
disenfranchied. No state the denies women the vote can be a democracy.
Hmmm. Have to tell that to Socrates and Plato and the rest of the city
fathers of Athens.
Lyn David Thomas
2005-07-29 06:33:05 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 03:26:33 GMT
Post by The Horny Goat
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 07:39:28 +0000, Lyn David Thomas
Post by Lyn David Thomas
A limited Franchise to the extent that you state is not a democracy. It
can't be a democracy when the majority of people (men and women) are
disenfranchied. No state the denies women the vote can be a democracy.
Hmmm. Have to tell that to Socrates and Plato and the rest of the city
fathers of Athens.
I know, but in any modern sense no state that denies women the vote can
be a democracy.
Mike Stone
2005-07-29 06:24:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lyn David Thomas
I know, but in any modern sense no state that denies women the vote can
be a democracy.
Tell that to the Swiss. Iirc several cantons didn't adopt female suffrage
till about 1970.

In any case, what has "by modern standards" got to do with the matter? We
are talking about events of the mid-19C, so the only relevant standards are
those of that era - which certainly didn't regard votes for women as a
prerequisite for being democratic.

--


Mike Stone - Peterborough, England

Seeking the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and
everything is not a task for cowards.

It is essential to show some forty-twode
Lyn David Thomas
2005-07-25 05:55:44 UTC
Permalink
On 24 Jul 2005 13:21:32 -0700
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Set next to what? The UK that while the colonies that became the US
were British set up the practice of slavery, and overruled attempts by
local legislatures (like that of Virginia) to outlaw the practice?
For which the British Government was wrong, profoundly wrong, and by
planting such an evil should receive our historical condemmnation.

But having obtained political independence those states should have
abolished slavery as the abomination that it was.
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Post by Lyn David Thomas
far worse
than anything in the north.
Indians were treated vastly worse than blacks by both north and south.
While blacks in the south were held to labor, their death and birth
rates were not much different from those of white southerners. This
was not true of Indians.
The treatment of the Native Americans by all was genocide, pure and
simple and a blot on the history of all people of North America, and
the USA in particular. It is something that the people of that country
should be deeply ashamed of and they should still be paying reparations
to the surviving communities.
Alfred Montestruc
2005-07-26 06:23:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lyn David Thomas
On 24 Jul 2005 13:21:32 -0700
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Set next to what? The UK that while the colonies that became the US
were British set up the practice of slavery, and overruled attempts by
local legislatures (like that of Virginia) to outlaw the practice?
For which the British Government was wrong, profoundly wrong, and by
planting such an evil should receive our historical condemmnation.
But having obtained political independence those states should have
abolished slavery as the abomination that it was.
But I gather you think it just peachy-keen to heap abuse on those that
the British left in a situation that their economy was dependent on
slave labor to make or grow goods with slave labor, and sell them to
the British who bought such products made cheaper because they were
made with slave labor, while many of these self-righteous British
people denounced the moral wickedness of those southern slave owners,
in a club sipping tea sweetened with sugar grown with slave labor,
while wearing cotton cloth made with slave labor, and smoking tobacco
also grown with slave labor.

Yet you expect the white southerners to impoverish themselves to be
morally righteous, by your standards, when the British people of that
era people were not even willing to make a serious effort to boycott
goods made with slave labor.

Do you see the hypocracy in your finger pointing?

Do you understand that the person who profits from slave labor by
knowingly buying goods made with slave labor is morally almost as
guilty, and in no position to denounce the slave owner.
Post by Lyn David Thomas
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Post by Lyn David Thomas
far worse
than anything in the north.
Indians were treated vastly worse than blacks by both north and south.
While blacks in the south were held to labor, their death and birth
rates were not much different from those of white southerners. This
was not true of Indians.
The treatment of the Native Americans by all was genocide, pure and
simple and a blot on the history of all people of North America, and
the USA in particular. It is something that the people of that country
should be deeply ashamed of and they should still be paying reparations
to the surviving communities.
But British should not be paying to them for setting us white americans
loose on them? Nor to Black Africans for enslaving them and shipping
them to various parts of the New World including the USA, Jamaca, , , ,

Who's idea was it to legalize slavery in British North America?

Pot -Kettle - Black
Lyn David Thomas
2005-07-26 06:59:02 UTC
Permalink
On 25 Jul 2005 23:23:56 -0700
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Post by Lyn David Thomas
On 24 Jul 2005 13:21:32 -0700
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Set next to what? The UK that while the colonies that became the
US were British set up the practice of slavery, and overruled
attempts by local legislatures (like that of Virginia) to outlaw
the practice?
For which the British Government was wrong, profoundly wrong, and by
planting such an evil should receive our historical condemmnation.
But having obtained political independence those states should have
abolished slavery as the abomination that it was.
But I gather you think it just peachy-keen to heap abuse on those that
the British left in a situation that their economy was dependent on
slave labor to make or grow goods with slave labor, and sell them to
the British who bought such products made cheaper because they were
made with slave labor, while many of these self-righteous British
people denounced the moral wickedness of those southern slave owners,
in a club sipping tea sweetened with sugar grown with slave labor,
while wearing cotton cloth made with slave labor, and smoking tobacco
also grown with slave labor.
So you are an apologist for slavery, glad to have that established.
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Yet you expect the white southerners to impoverish themselves to be
morally righteous, by your standards, when the British people of that
era people were not even willing to make a serious effort to boycott
goods made with slave labor.
Actually people were, just not enough.
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Do you see the hypocracy in your finger pointing?
No I don't - on the other hand I do see a person who is an apologist
for slavery.
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Do you understand that the person who profits from slave labor by
knowingly buying goods made with slave labor is morally almost as
guilty, and in no position to denounce the slave owner.
Post by Lyn David Thomas
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Post by Lyn David Thomas
far worse
than anything in the north.
Indians were treated vastly worse than blacks by both north and
south. While blacks in the south were held to labor, their death
and birth rates were not much different from those of white
southerners. This was not true of Indians.
The treatment of the Native Americans by all was genocide, pure and
simple and a blot on the history of all people of North America, and
the USA in particular. It is something that the people of that
country should be deeply ashamed of and they should still be paying
reparations to the surviving communities.
But British should not be paying to them for setting us white
americans loose on them? Nor to Black Africans for enslaving them and
shipping them to various parts of the New World including the USA,
Jamaca, , , ,
The British didn't carry out a war of extermination.
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Who's idea was it to legalize slavery in British North America?
Pot -Kettle - Black
I have said I condemn the British actions of the past, and believe we
should pay reparations to communities, that is why I believe that
world problems need to be solved by the world community, and until we
correct past wrongs we can't solve modern problems.
Alfred Montestruc
2005-07-27 23:42:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lyn David Thomas
On 25 Jul 2005 23:23:56 -0700
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Post by Lyn David Thomas
On 24 Jul 2005 13:21:32 -0700
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Set next to what? The UK that while the colonies that became the
US were British set up the practice of slavery, and overruled
attempts by local legislatures (like that of Virginia) to outlaw
the practice?
For which the British Government was wrong, profoundly wrong, and by
planting such an evil should receive our historical condemmnation.
But having obtained political independence those states should have
abolished slavery as the abomination that it was.
But I gather you think it just peachy-keen to heap abuse on those that
the British left in a situation that their economy was dependent on
slave labor to make or grow goods with slave labor, and sell them to
the British who bought such products made cheaper because they were
made with slave labor, while many of these self-righteous British
people denounced the moral wickedness of those southern slave owners,
in a club sipping tea sweetened with sugar grown with slave labor,
while wearing cotton cloth made with slave labor, and smoking tobacco
also grown with slave labor.
So you are an apologist for slavery, glad to have that established.
http://www.etymonline.com/cw/apologia.htm

---------quote-----
Eugene Genovese is another who has observed that, in today's academic
climate, "to speak positively of any part of this southern tradition is
to invite charges of being a racist and an apologist for slavery and
segregation." When Bernard Bailyn wrote the word "fanaticism" to refer
to abolitionist beliefs, he was attacked for using "the vocabulary of
proslavery apologists."[1] One stands up for the South with a
resignation to being splattered by rotten vegetables. So why bother?

Because many otherwise thoughtful and open-minded Americans only see
the South, past and present, as a failed society, poisoned by slavery
and racism, peopled by evil masters and wretched rednecks -- Simon
Legrees and "Deliverance" extras. Any love or respect for anything
Southern, to these people, is just a transparent mask for racism. This
is palpably false. And it is destructive. First, because objective
historical inquiry is an essential aspect of a free, thinking people.
To ask, "was slavery profitable?" is not to say, "slavery was
justified," even if the answer you come up with is, "yes, it was."
Moral abhorrence does not preclude honest study. The historian's job is
not to tell you the way things ought to have been, but the way they
were.
---------------------end quote.

I do not now nor have I ever advocated slavery or racism, or held that
they were in any sense "good". I do think that once as deeply
entrenched as slavery was in the US southern economy, and the economy
of the whole of the US economy, to suddenly shut it down without
careful thought and an intelligent plan, (Like the British did in the
West Indies) is to invite disaster, as in starvation, revolution and
possible race war, or more likely genocide (of unarmed slave
populations). Note that products of slave labor formed the majority of
US exports till the war came, so it a reasonable probability that a
sudden legal uncompensated emancipation could cause an economic
upheaval of great depression proportions.

The fact that the war had largely shattered the southern economy masked
the economic dislocation that emancipation brought.

If being against monumentally stupid policies that did or would have
caused enormous economic hardship to all of the people of the USA
(including or especially slaves), and/or resulted in mass deaths of my
countrymen, is being an "apologist for slavery" then I think you
are doing no more that name calling, and have not a clue what the
argument is about.
Post by Lyn David Thomas
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Yet you expect the white southerners to impoverish themselves to be
morally righteous, by your standards, when the British people of that
era people were not even willing to make a serious effort to boycott
goods made with slave labor.
Actually people were, just not enough.
Well I expect that a large fraction of anti-slavery society members
were doing so yes, that does not hold a candle to a Royal Navy blockade
as was done to end the slave trade.
Post by Lyn David Thomas
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Do you see the hypocracy in your finger pointing?
No I don't - on the other hand I do see a person who is an apologist
for slavery.
What exactly do you mean by that?
Post by Lyn David Thomas
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Do you understand that the person who profits from slave labor by
knowingly buying goods made with slave labor is morally almost as
guilty, and in no position to denounce the slave owner.
Post by Lyn David Thomas
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Post by Lyn David Thomas
far worse
than anything in the north.
Indians were treated vastly worse than blacks by both north and
south. While blacks in the south were held to labor, their death
and birth rates were not much different from those of white
southerners. This was not true of Indians.
The treatment of the Native Americans by all was genocide, pure and
simple and a blot on the history of all people of North America, and
the USA in particular. It is something that the people of that
country should be deeply ashamed of and they should still be paying
reparations to the surviving communities.
But British should not be paying to them for setting us white
americans loose on them? Nor to Black Africans for enslaving them and
shipping them to various parts of the New World including the USA,
Jamaca, , , ,
The British didn't carry out a war of extermination.
Where did they not? I know they did in North America before the
revolution, deliberately giving small-pox infected blankets to Native
Americans. I understand they did in Oz, and in at least parts of
Polynesia, how about against the Zulu in Africa? I suppose one could
argue that it was utterly impractical in India given the shear mass of
Indians, they did give it a go in China with the Opium war.
Post by Lyn David Thomas
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Who's idea was it to legalize slavery in British North America?
Pot -Kettle - Black
I have said I condemn the British actions of the past, and believe we
should pay reparations to communities, that is why I believe that
world problems need to be solved by the world community, and until we
correct past wrongs we can't solve modern problems.
So questioning a solution that costs about one dead soldier and another
maimed for every five freed slaves, and a monetary cost exceeding the
nominal value of the slaves, and that wrecks the economy of a huge
area, when slavery had been ended elsewhere without a war at a fraction
of the monetary cost per slave (to the government) is to be an
"apologist for slavery" ?

I'm confused, please elucidate.
Midnighter
2005-07-26 07:07:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Post by Lyn David Thomas
On 24 Jul 2005 13:21:32 -0700
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Set next to what? The UK that while the colonies that became the US
were British set up the practice of slavery, and overruled attempts by
local legislatures (like that of Virginia) to outlaw the practice?
For which the British Government was wrong, profoundly wrong, and by
planting such an evil should receive our historical condemmnation.
But having obtained political independence those states should have
abolished slavery as the abomination that it was.
But I gather you think it just peachy-keen to heap abuse on those that
the British left in a situation that their economy was dependent on
slave labor to make or grow goods with slave labor, and sell them to
the British who bought such products made cheaper because they were
made with slave labor, while many of these self-righteous British
people denounced the moral wickedness of those southern slave owners,
in a club sipping tea sweetened with sugar grown with slave labor,
while wearing cotton cloth made with slave labor, and smoking tobacco
also grown with slave labor.
Yet you expect the white southerners to impoverish themselves to be
morally righteous, by your standards, when the British people of that
era people were not even willing to make a serious effort to boycott
goods made with slave labor.
Do you see the hypocracy in your finger pointing?
Do you understand that the person who profits from slave labor by
knowingly buying goods made with slave labor is morally almost as
guilty, and in no position to denounce the slave owner.
Pop quiz.

Itemize the clothing your wearing right now.
check the labels.
make a list of the countries the clothes were manufactured in.

do a quick google on that particular brand, and country. Throw in a search
on their labour laws, human rights issues, and other fun facts.

If you want to really depress yourself do it for luxury items.

Things are no better now than they were then. Names, faces, races, and
places have changed, but little else.
Alfred Montestruc
2005-07-27 23:48:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Midnighter
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Post by Lyn David Thomas
On 24 Jul 2005 13:21:32 -0700
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Set next to what? The UK that while the colonies that became the US
were British set up the practice of slavery, and overruled attempts by
local legislatures (like that of Virginia) to outlaw the practice?
For which the British Government was wrong, profoundly wrong, and by
planting such an evil should receive our historical condemmnation.
But having obtained political independence those states should have
abolished slavery as the abomination that it was.
But I gather you think it just peachy-keen to heap abuse on those that
the British left in a situation that their economy was dependent on
slave labor to make or grow goods with slave labor, and sell them to
the British who bought such products made cheaper because they were
made with slave labor, while many of these self-righteous British
people denounced the moral wickedness of those southern slave owners,
in a club sipping tea sweetened with sugar grown with slave labor,
while wearing cotton cloth made with slave labor, and smoking tobacco
also grown with slave labor.
Yet you expect the white southerners to impoverish themselves to be
morally righteous, by your standards, when the British people of that
era people were not even willing to make a serious effort to boycott
goods made with slave labor.
Do you see the hypocracy in your finger pointing?
Do you understand that the person who profits from slave labor by
knowingly buying goods made with slave labor is morally almost as
guilty, and in no position to denounce the slave owner.
Pop quiz.
Itemize the clothing your wearing right now.
check the labels.
make a list of the countries the clothes were manufactured in.
do a quick google on that particular brand, and country. Throw in a search
on their labour laws, human rights issues, and other fun facts.
Slavery is a difference of kind from having labor laws set up against
unions or allowing children to work, or less than optimal western
safety practice, not a difference of degree.

The basic difference is not even the usually low pay of a slave (room
and board count as pay) is that a slave cannot quit or change jobs.

If you can show me a case were such workers cannot legally quit and
legally cannot work for another party, I will be interested in a
boycott, but labor laws that do not allow unions or the like, , please
that is trivia and in any case I live in a "right to work" state, and
am not so sure that child labor laws are a net good. Having an income
and the ability to support oneself is a positive.

----snip
Mike Stone
2005-07-24 09:30:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alfred Montestruc
If the people of South Carolina (or any state) wanted to sever the
political ties between them and the USA, that is their right, and all
the real estate, and the sovereignty over it that was part of south
carolina, goes with them.
Which did _not_ include Ft Sumter, the latter having been ceded to the US
gov't decades before.

Or do you reckon that when _Virginia_ seceded she was entitled to renew her
claims to the land northwest of the Ohio River incl Ohio, Indiana, Illinois
and much else beside, which she resigned to the US in 1787?

Even if SC's secession were valid, it could only affect people and places
belonging to SC on 20 Dec 1860 - and Ft Sumter wasn't.
Post by Alfred Montestruc
If you go to play baseball with the kid next door, and the two of you
cannot agree about something, then he can kick you out of his dad's
backyard, and you can take the stuff you brought with you, however you
cannot take his glove, ball or bat because he agreed you could use it
while playing ball.
Nor can you take back stuff that you _gave_ (not lent) to him years before,
maybe as a birthday present or whatever.
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Much the same should apply to cricket if you do not get the baseball
references. Only problem with the real life case was that their were
no adults (in emotional maturity anyway) able to box the ears of the
brats in charge of both sides and send them to their rooms to stand in
the corner for few years.
Agreed, but the Southern "brat" was behaving a good deal worse - and in
particular was the first to resort to fisticuffs.



--


Mike Stone - Peterborough, England

Seeking the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and
everything is not a task for cowards.

It is essential to show some forty-twode
Alfred Montestruc
2005-07-24 20:42:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Stone
Post by Alfred Montestruc
If the people of South Carolina (or any state) wanted to sever the
political ties between them and the USA, that is their right, and all
the real estate, and the sovereignty over it that was part of south
carolina, goes with them.
Which did _not_ include Ft Sumter, the latter having been ceded to the US
gov't decades before.
Or do you reckon that when _Virginia_ seceded she was entitled to renew her
claims to the land northwest of the Ohio River incl Ohio, Indiana, Illinois
and much else beside, which she resigned to the US in 1787?
Fort Sumter was not a place large enogh to become a state, and nobody
lived and farmed and paid taxes to a state of fort sumter. AFAIK
nobody but US troops lived there at all. Thus it was real estate, that
still was considered to be part of South Carolina just as US military
bases are considered part of the state in which they lay, and to some
extent state laws apply on that base.
Post by Mike Stone
Even if SC's secession were valid, it could only affect people and places
belonging to SC on 20 Dec 1860 - and Ft Sumter wasn't.
But Fort Sumter belonged to the people of South Carolina regardless of
whether it was through the state or through the federal govenment. A
federal facility that is built and intended and used to the benifit of
the people of one state only and in fact the people of one small part
of one state has no value to people of other states. The people of
south carolina own a fair proportion of the US government, that must
include the property that serves only them like Fort Sumter.

--snip
Mike Stone
2005-07-26 08:19:53 UTC
Permalink
Alfred Montestruc Jul 24, 9:42 pm
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Fort Sumter was not a place large enogh to become a state, and nobody
lived and farmed and paid taxes to a state of fort sumter. AFAIK
nobody but US troops lived there at all. Thus it was real estate, that
still was considered to be part of South Carolina just as US military
bases are considered part of the state in which they lay, and to some
extent state laws apply on that base.
Only insofar as the US _chooses_ to permit them to apply. The
Constitution gives Congress the right to legislate "exclusively" for
such places. Otherwise, of course, the Maryland legislature could pass
laws for the District of Columbia, which I'm pretty sure it can't.
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Even if SC's secession were valid, it could only affect people and places
belonging to SC on 20 Dec 1860 - and Ft Sumter wasn't.
But Fort Sumter belonged to the people of South Carolina regardless of
whether it was through the state or through the federal govenment. A
federal facility that is built and intended and used to the benifit of
the people of one state only and in fact the people of one small part
of one state has no value to people of other states. The people of
south carolina own a fair proportion of the US government, that must
include the property that serves only them like Fort Sumter.

Show me one Supreme Court ruling or international treaty (applicable in
1861) which says so
--


Mike Stone - Peterborough, England


Seeking the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and
everything is not a task for cowards.


It is essential to show some forty-twode
Alfred Montestruc
2005-07-28 05:45:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Stone
Alfred Montestruc Jul 24, 9:42 pm
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Fort Sumter was not a place large enogh to become a state, and nobody
lived and farmed and paid taxes to a state of fort sumter. AFAIK
nobody but US troops lived there at all. Thus it was real estate, that
still was considered to be part of South Carolina just as US military
bases are considered part of the state in which they lay, and to some
extent state laws apply on that base.
Only insofar as the US _chooses_ to permit them to apply. The
Constitution gives Congress the right to legislate "exclusively" for
such places. Otherwise, of course, the Maryland legislature could pass
laws for the District of Columbia, which I'm pretty sure it can't.
The District of Columbia is a seprarate thing explicitly stated in the
constitution from a military base.

http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm

------------quote article I section 8 second from last
clause-----------
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such
District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of
particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of
the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority
over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the
State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines,
Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
--------------end quote----------------

Note that "Cession" is not the same thing as "Consent". Consent can be
withdrawn. That may require that the USA be paid back the money it
paid for the land, probably with interest, but paying someone requires
that he be willing to take the money and often sign instruments and so
on, and in 1861 the president refused to negociated with
representatives of that state, and that led to war.

---snip
Mike Stone
2005-07-28 06:49:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alfred Montestruc
The District of Columbia is a seprarate thing explicitly stated in the
constitution from a military base.
http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm
------------quote article I section 8 second from last
clause-----------
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such
District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of
particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of
the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority
over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the
State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines,
Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
--------------end quote----------------
Note that "Cession" is not the same thing as "Consent". Consent can be
withdrawn. That may require that the USA be paid back the money it
paid for the land, probably with interest, but paying someone requires
that he be willing to take the money and often sign instruments and so
on, and in 1861 the president refused to negociated with
representatives of that state, and that led to war.
Consent can be withdrawn up to the point a sale takes place - not
subsequently. Once I agree to sell a part of my back yard, I may change my
mind before the money changes hands, but once I have taken the money and
handed over the land, I _cannot_ change my mind later and insist that he
give it back - even if I am willing to return his money. Once I have sold
it, it is _his_ and the decision whether to return it rests entirely with
him. He is under no obligation to do so.
--


Mike Stone - Peterborough, England

Seeking the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and
everything is not a task for cowards.

It is essential to show some forty-twode
Daniel Silevitch
2005-07-24 14:38:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alfred Montestruc
The property rights of the people of South Carolina did not end with
secession, thus they were entitled to a share of federal property and
that would necessaraly include items such as that fort that were
intended for their use and useless otherwise.
The Al Montestruc theory of divorce: The party of the first part can
point at various bits of shared property and say "That's mine. If you
don't give it to me right now, I'm going to take it, and hit you with a
baseball bat if you try to stop me". The party of the second part must
accept this without argument.

You might have a glimmering of a case if South Carolina had seceded and
then brought a lawsuit against the Federal government for return of
their "rightful property". Or asked a neutral third party (Britain, say)
to mediate. Or anything. Instead, they rolled out the cannons. Live by
the sword, die by the sword.

-dms
Mike Stone
2005-07-26 08:08:13 UTC
Permalink
Alfred Montestruc Jul 24, 1:12 am show options
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Post by Mike Stone
How did Ft Sumter "belong" to SC? It had been ceded to the US a
generation earlier, and was no more part of SC than the city of
Washington was part of Maryland. Even if secession were valid, it would
have no affect on the fort's status.
You are mistaken it directly affects the fort's status. The federal
government is owned by the people of the USA, the property of the
federal government is held in trust for the people of the US. All
rights are rights of people, organizations only have rights held in
trust for individuals.
The property rights of the people of South Carolina did not end with
secession, thus they were entitled to a share of federal property and
that would necessaraly include items such as that fort that were
intended for their use and useless otherwise.
Can you show me one Supreme Court decision (or even a sttsment by any
of the principal Framers of the Constituion)upholding this notion?

The US Gov't had acted for the last 70-plus years as an entity capable
of exercising sovereignty in it own right, notably (but not only) in US
territory not forming part of any stste,a nd in which no state nor the
people of any state could exercise any authority except _through_ the
organs of the Federal gov't.

Nor do I recall any law or court ruling that an indvidual director of a
corporation, quarreling with his colleagues, was entitled to decide for
himself which particular assets constitured "his" share, and take
possession of them at the point of a gun.

Even if we take secession as legitimate and treat SC as a separate
country, was there any international treaty or agreement extant in 1861
allowing such behaviour between nations, other, of course, than ones
already at war with each other?

--


Mike Stone - Peterborough, England


Seeking the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and
everything is not a task for cowards.


It is essential to show some forty-twode
Alfred Montestruc
2005-07-28 07:05:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Stone
Alfred Montestruc Jul 24, 1:12 am show options
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Post by Mike Stone
How did Ft Sumter "belong" to SC? It had been ceded to the US a
generation earlier, and was no more part of SC than the city of
Washington was part of Maryland. Even if secession were valid, it would
have no affect on the fort's status.
You are mistaken it directly affects the fort's status. The federal
government is owned by the people of the USA, the property of the
federal government is held in trust for the people of the US. All
rights are rights of people, organizations only have rights held in
trust for individuals.
The property rights of the people of South Carolina did not end with
secession, thus they were entitled to a share of federal property and
that would necessaraly include items such as that fort that were
intended for their use and useless otherwise.
Can you show me one Supreme Court decision (or even a sttsment by any
of the principal Framers of the Constituion)upholding this notion?
http://www.constitution.org/us_doi.htm

"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"

All powers come from the consent of the governed, consent can be
withdrawn, from each and every government. In a federal system consent
can be withdrawn from one government in the federal system (such as
that of the USA) without it being withdrawn from any of the others. So
consent could be, and was withdrawn by the people of south carolina
from the federal, but not the state or local governments.
Mike Stone
2005-07-28 07:34:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Post by Mike Stone
Alfred Montestruc Jul 24, 1:12 am show options
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Post by Mike Stone
How did Ft Sumter "belong" to SC? It had been ceded to the US a
generation earlier, and was no more part of SC than the city of
Washington was part of Maryland. Even if secession were valid, it would
have no affect on the fort's status.
You are mistaken it directly affects the fort's status. The federal
government is owned by the people of the USA, the property of the
federal government is held in trust for the people of the US. All
rights are rights of people, organizations only have rights held in
trust for individuals.
The property rights of the people of South Carolina did not end with
secession, thus they were entitled to a share of federal property and
that would necessaraly include items such as that fort that were
intended for their use and useless otherwise.
Can you show me one Supreme Court decision (or even a sttsment by any
of the principal Framers of the Constituion)upholding this notion?
http://www.constitution.org/us_doi.htm
"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 was a political manifesto, not a legal document.

Of course, if it _did_ have legal force, that would raise some interesting
questions regarding the status of the slaves, who I'm pretty sure never
consented to be governed by Massa. If the political rhetoric in the DoI has
the force of law (it doesn't) that comes dangerously close to "legalising"
the John Brown raid <g>

It would also arguably have legalised Dorr's takeover in Rhode Island, which
the Supreme Court (Luther v Borden 1849) explicitly declared was _not_
lawful.
Post by Alfred Montestruc
All powers come from the consent of the governed, consent can be
withdrawn, from each and every government. In a federal system consent
can be withdrawn from one government in the federal system (such as
that of the USA) without it being withdrawn from any of the others. So
consent could be, and was withdrawn by the people of south carolina
from the federal, but not the state or local governments.
So?

If their secession was lawful (I do not say it was) then they were a foreign
country, and their bombardment of Ft Sumter was an act of war against the
US.

From that point on, all questions of law were off the table, and the only
"rights" they had were those they could enforce in the field, whether by
outright military victory or by "outlasting" northern patience. They proved
unable to do either, but that was just their bad luck, not an injustice.

--


Mike Stone - Peterborough, England

Seeking the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and
everything is not a task for cowards.

It is essential to show some forty-twode
Alfred Montestruc
2005-07-29 06:27:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Stone
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Post by Mike Stone
Alfred Montestruc Jul 24, 1:12 am show options
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Post by Mike Stone
How did Ft Sumter "belong" to SC? It had been ceded to the US a
generation earlier, and was no more part of SC than the city of
Washington was part of Maryland. Even if secession were valid, it
would
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Post by Mike Stone
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Post by Mike Stone
have no affect on the fort's status.
You are mistaken it directly affects the fort's status. The federal
government is owned by the people of the USA, the property of the
federal government is held in trust for the people of the US. All
rights are rights of people, organizations only have rights held in
trust for individuals.
The property rights of the people of South Carolina did not end with
secession, thus they were entitled to a share of federal property and
that would necessaraly include items such as that fort that were
intended for their use and useless otherwise.
Can you show me one Supreme Court decision (or even a sttsment by any
of the principal Framers of the Constituion)upholding this notion?
http://www.constitution.org/us_doi.htm
"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 was a political manifesto, not a legal document.
You asked "Can you show me one Supreme Court decision (or even a
sttsment (sic) [statement?] by any of the principal Framers of the
Constitution upholding this notion?"

While I do understand that it is not a supreme court decision, and that
the committee that drafted the Declaration of Independence is not one
and the same as that which drafted the Constitution, you must admit to
a good deal of overlap.

I am not all that impressed with SCOTUS in that it diverged quickly
from the principles of the American Revolution. You also did not
exclude "political manifestos".
Post by Mike Stone
Of course, if it _did_ have legal force, that would raise some interesting
questions regarding the status of the slaves,
Agreed, if Jefferson had been given his way slavery would have ended
during the revolution with much less pain and strain. Read that part of
his first draft of the DOI below.


http://www.constitution.org/tj/doi_rough.htm

--------------partial quote---------------
he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most
sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who
never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another
hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation
thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is
the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep
open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his
negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to
restrain this execrable commerce; and that this assemblage of horrors
might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very
people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which
he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded
them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of
one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives
of another.
-------------------------end quote

Unfortunately too many southern planters were unwilling to consider
ending slavery as part of the revolution (they were risking their
lives, reputation and fortune on the so-so chance of winning, they
understandably were not willing to lose their riches if they won the
war), even if on a gradual compensated emancipation plan, and the
revolution could not be won without them.

Practical military necessity reared its ugly head as it has throughout
history and forced a compromise that in an ideal world we would not
want. Jefferson was unable to free all his slaves as he was deeply in
debt and was never a good enough businessman to get out of it enough to
not be using slaves as collateral on farm loans.

Washington was a good businessman and freed all his slaves in his will,
he could not have openly been an abolitionist as this might have caused
an earlier secession.

http://www.mountvernon.org/learn/meet_george/index.cfm/ss/101/
Post by Mike Stone
who I'm pretty sure never
consented to be governed by Massa. If the political rhetoric in the DoI has
the force of law (it doesn't) that comes dangerously close to "legalising"
the John Brown raid <g>
No. John Brown was a terrorist, pure and simple. The first man
murdered in that raid was a freed slave working for the railroad who
tried to warn others of the approach of an armed party up to no good.

FYI, One of the charges John Brown hung for was the murder of a black
man who bought his own freedom working within the system, in a slave
state. It seems a bit ironic that this "evil" state government
that upheld the legality of slavery, executed a white man for the
murder of a black ex-slave among other murders and felonious acts..
Post by Mike Stone
It would also arguably have legalised Dorr's takeover in Rhode Island, which
the Supreme Court (Luther v Borden 1849) explicitly declared was _not_
lawful.
Post by Alfred Montestruc
All powers come from the consent of the governed, consent can be
withdrawn, from each and every government. In a federal system consent
can be withdrawn from one government in the federal system (such as
that of the USA) without it being withdrawn from any of the others. So
consent could be, and was withdrawn by the people of south carolina
from the federal, but not the state or local governments.
So?
You are confused. Governments have no rights of their own. Only
people have rights. The rights to Fort Sumter -- both in terms of
property and legal sovereignty -- belonged to the people of the USA as
a whole prior to secession. If secession is legal, then necessarily
property and sovereignties will be divided, and one portion of the
people separated would have some, and the other portion of the people
separated would have the rest. It is absurd to think that the people
of South Carolina in secession from the United States would expect to
keep a fort on the border of Canada, or the Philadelphia Navy Yard,
likewise the people of the rest of the States of Union have no use for
Fort Sumter, or the Federal Courthouse in Charleston, or other such
structures wholly within South Carolina and intended only for the use
or defense of those people, other than to subjugate them. The
ownership and sovereignty of that land must go to the people of South
Carolina if any semblance of fairness is to be upheld.

Your argument is dishonest, in that you presume what you set out to
prove. If you were honest about it you would assert that secession was
unconstitutional, and illegal and any force used to enforce an act of
secession was treason.
Andrew Gray
2005-07-26 01:04:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel Silevitch
ObWI: During the Bismarck's maiden WWII voyage, the initial encounter
with HMS Hood and Prince of Wales does not result in a lucky shot
sinking the Hood. Bismarck takes some damage, but manages to break
contact with the British ships. Does the RN pursue with the same
full-bore intensity as OTL? If Bismarck makes it back to port, what
effect on the development of the naval war?
Not much. She'd be running for the French coast; let's say that despite
not sinking Hood, she manages to evade the other groups searching for
her and make it into St. Nazaire, damaged but repairable.

So, the RN is mostly untouched, but now has a German heavy raider in
Norway and one in France. Historically neither did much, but there'll be
the major danger of Bismarck heading out into the Atlantic again. Expect
a greater level of observation on the St. Nazaire docks, and the raids
that historically shut it down in 1942 to be given high priority. Bomber
Command spends a few futile months hammering Western France, perhaps?
Given the ineffectiveness of strategic bombing at this time, though,
this probably won't mean much.

Perhaps the force based at Gibraltar is reinforced in case she heads
south? This would seem logical - the heavy elements being based in
Scotland is unhelpful if they don't have to go past her.

The RN would be spread thinner ATL, but unless she breaks out again -
which isn't likely if she needs any major repairs, since by the time
they're complete the dock will have been enthusiastically attacked - I
can't see it having lasting effects on the course of the war.

Unless, hmm. If the knock-on effects mean that carriers get shifted
around all over the place, and the building schedule is accelerated
slightly, it might mean there's a working carrier available in the UK at
the end of 1941 to be sent to Singapore... historically, there would
have been one, but Indomitable had run aground in the West Indies and
needed repair.

I'm not offhand sure if that would achieve anything. But the Sea
Hurricane was around by this point, deployed to some carriers, and
having a flight of these around with the capital ships could well prove
an upset.

So. Early December 1941, as the Japanese are establishing themselves
across the Far East. Repulse and Prince of Wales (or whichever ships get
sent out, given the RN strength is a little different), together with
Indomitable (or a similar carrier) are around in the South China Sea.
They're known to the Japanese, but they've not been sunk - an aerial
skirmish saw off a passing flight of bombers.

What kind of spanner does that throw in the works? I doubt it'd be
enough for Singapore to survive, if Japanese troops are already ashore,
but it's the largest coherent naval group kicking around...
--
-Andrew Gray
***@dunelm.org.uk
Daniel Silevitch
2005-07-26 01:34:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Gray
Post by Daniel Silevitch
ObWI: During the Bismarck's maiden WWII voyage, the initial encounter
with HMS Hood and Prince of Wales does not result in a lucky shot
sinking the Hood. Bismarck takes some damage, but manages to break
contact with the British ships. Does the RN pursue with the same
full-bore intensity as OTL? If Bismarck makes it back to port, what
effect on the development of the naval war?
Not much. She'd be running for the French coast; let's say that despite
not sinking Hood, she manages to evade the other groups searching for
her and make it into St. Nazaire, damaged but repairable.
Reasonable. I suspect that the Germans will be trying to run the Red
Queen's Race in terms of repairing her whilst the RN and RAF are having
a spirited competition to see who can sink her. Would X craft be
practicle in St. Nazaire?
Post by Andrew Gray
Unless, hmm. If the knock-on effects mean that carriers get shifted
around all over the place, and the building schedule is accelerated
slightly, it might mean there's a working carrier available in the UK at
the end of 1941 to be sent to Singapore... historically, there would
have been one, but Indomitable had run aground in the West Indies and
needed repair.
I'm not offhand sure if that would achieve anything. But the Sea
Hurricane was around by this point, deployed to some carriers, and
having a flight of these around with the capital ships could well prove
an upset.
So. Early December 1941, as the Japanese are establishing themselves
across the Far East. Repulse and Prince of Wales (or whichever ships get
sent out, given the RN strength is a little different), together with
Indomitable (or a similar carrier) are around in the South China Sea.
They're known to the Japanese, but they've not been sunk - an aerial
skirmish saw off a passing flight of bombers.
What kind of spanner does that throw in the works? I doubt it'd be
enough for Singapore to survive, if Japanese troops are already ashore,
but it's the largest coherent naval group kicking around...
Ooh. I wonder if it would be feasible to have a Hood vs. Kongo duel?
Probably not; the Japanese were very carrier oriented during this stage
of the war. Ah, well, twould have been dramatic.

More seriously, if the British can get a serious force in place to
interfere with the Japanese landings, it may not save Singapore, but I'd
bet that it would allow the garrison to hold out for quite a bit longer
than OTL. _That_ would have significant resulting effects. For starters,
a Japan which didn't run the tables in the first few months of the war
probably takes a somewhat less ...ambitious approach to planning Phase
II (particularly if the RN manage to take down a carrier or two before
being overwhelmed by superior IJN numbers). Coral Sea and Midway are
either butterflied away or are changing signficantly.

The broad course of the Pacific war would probably be roughly the same
as OTL, but the details will change a lot.

-dms
Andrew Gray
2005-07-26 02:27:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel Silevitch
Post by Andrew Gray
Not much. She'd be running for the French coast; let's say that despite
not sinking Hood, she manages to evade the other groups searching for
her and make it into St. Nazaire, damaged but repairable.
Reasonable. I suspect that the Germans will be trying to run the Red
Queen's Race in terms of repairing her whilst the RN and RAF are having
a spirited competition to see who can sink her. Would X craft be
practicle in St. Nazaire?
There's a small diagram on wiki, along with a description of the OTL
raid - which I suspect wouldn't have worked on an occupied dock. But
something would have been tried, I guess.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chariot

If she lasts long enough, she may be involved in the Channel Dash - but
that went from Brest, and sallying from St. Nazaire might have been just
too much time and given the game away. (OTOH, regular redeployments
between Brest & St. Nazaire would really wind up the RN...)
Post by Daniel Silevitch
More seriously, if the British can get a serious force in place to
interfere with the Japanese landings, it may not save Singapore, but I'd
bet that it would allow the garrison to hold out for quite a bit longer
than OTL.
The problem is that troops are already landed and in place by the 10th.
It'll slow the assault, but the Japanese are in place and will prove
very hard to shift... and logistic attacks may not work if they're
supplied from Siam.

OTL, though, the Allied naval force here seems to have been a handful of
(fairly old) cruisers and destroyers; two battleships and an aircraft
carrier would have skewed the strength quite impressively. Winning the
Battle of the Java Sea, or the ATL equivalent of it, would really shake
things up. Probably wouldn't prevent Java being invaded, since there was
no shortage of Overwhelming Japanese Force, but the more the Japanese
are slowed down at this stage then the more knock-on effects it'll have
down the line.
Post by Daniel Silevitch
The broad course of the Pacific war would probably be roughly the same
as OTL, but the details will change a lot.
Indeed. Interesting, but I really don't know enough to figure out what
they are...

It's surprising to envisage the effects of the Bismarck's survival being
a net positive for the Allies. Strange...
--
-Andrew Gray
***@dunelm.org.uk
Daniel Silevitch
2005-07-26 02:57:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Gray
Post by Daniel Silevitch
Post by Andrew Gray
Not much. She'd be running for the French coast; let's say that despite
not sinking Hood, she manages to evade the other groups searching for
her and make it into St. Nazaire, damaged but repairable.
Reasonable. I suspect that the Germans will be trying to run the Red
Queen's Race in terms of repairing her whilst the RN and RAF are having
a spirited competition to see who can sink her. Would X craft be
practicle in St. Nazaire?
There's a small diagram on wiki, along with a description of the OTL
raid - which I suspect wouldn't have worked on an occupied dock. But
something would have been tried, I guess.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chariot
Hrmm. I suspect that X-craft would be a no-go. Either Bismarck is in the
drydock or in the basin. An Operation *Chariot would be a
near-inevitability. With a big enough explosive charge, it might be
possible to cave in the drydock door even when closed. If that happens,
the inrush of water will not be healthy. USS Pennsylvania could in
theory have experienced something similar during Pearl Harbor, but
lucked out.

Now I'm having an insane vision of a WWII version of a Napoleonic-era
cutting-out expedition. Absolutely ludicrous, of course, but it'd make a
_great_ movie.
Post by Andrew Gray
Post by Daniel Silevitch
More seriously, if the British can get a serious force in place to
interfere with the Japanese landings, it may not save Singapore, but I'd
bet that it would allow the garrison to hold out for quite a bit longer
than OTL.
The problem is that troops are already landed and in place by the 10th.
It'll slow the assault, but the Japanese are in place and will prove
very hard to shift... and logistic attacks may not work if they're
supplied from Siam.
OTL, though, the Allied naval force here seems to have been a handful of
(fairly old) cruisers and destroyers; two battleships and an aircraft
carrier would have skewed the strength quite impressively. Winning the
Battle of the Java Sea, or the ATL equivalent of it, would really shake
things up. Probably wouldn't prevent Java being invaded, since there was
no shortage of Overwhelming Japanese Force, but the more the Japanese
are slowed down at this stage then the more knock-on effects it'll have
down the line.
Yep. The initial Japanese plan was pretty tight, without much slop for
things going wrong. Suprisingly, very little did go wrong in that
initial rush. If a spanner is thrown in the works of the 'Take the Dutch
East Indies' part of the plan, it's going to impact the Philipines, the
drive towards Australia, etc., etc.
Post by Andrew Gray
Post by Daniel Silevitch
The broad course of the Pacific war would probably be roughly the same
as OTL, but the details will change a lot.
Indeed. Interesting, but I really don't know enough to figure out what
they are...
The gold standard for early-Pacific-war PODs would have to be Alan
Lothian's Battle of Addu Atoll from ~2 years ago:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/soc.history.what-if/browse_frm/thread/2a3e1348791b1957/84973b384e05ed24

(mind the wrapping. Alternatively, go to
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/soc.history.what-if and search on
'Addu')

It just covers one alternate battle (in frightening detail), but would
probably provide a good springboard for speculation.
Post by Andrew Gray
It's surprising to envisage the effects of the Bismarck's survival being
a net positive for the Allies. Strange...
Funny, that. The OTL cruise was in some ways a net zero: each side lost
a capital ship. Of course, the RN had many more ships to lose, so
proportional losses were a bit skewed. It could also go the other way;
the presence of Bismarck and (eventually) Tirpitz requires additional RN
forces in home waters as a counter, weakening the strength that can be
deployed either to the Med or the Indian ocean.

-dms
Rich Rostrom
2005-07-27 17:27:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Gray
Post by Daniel Silevitch
ObWI: During the Bismarck's maiden WWII voyage, the initial encounter
with HMS Hood and Prince of Wales does not result in a lucky shot
sinking the Hood. Bismarck takes some damage, but manages to break
contact with the British ships. Does the RN pursue with the same
full-bore intensity as OTL? If Bismarck makes it back to port, what
effect on the development of the naval war?
Not much. She'd be running for the French coast; let's say that despite
not sinking Hood, she manages to evade the other groups searching for
her and make it into St. Nazaire, damaged but repairable.
Her destination was Brest.
Post by Andrew Gray
So, the RN is mostly untouched, but now has a German heavy raider in
Norway and one in France.
Three heavy raiders in France: BISMARCK, SCHARNHORST, and
GNEISENAU. There is no raider in Norway till TIRPITZ is
commissioned in September 1941. GNEISENAU may not be
operable at this time, having been torpedoed in harbor
on April 6, then hit by four bombs on April 11.
Post by Andrew Gray
Historically neither did much, but there'll be
the major danger of Bismarck heading out into the Atlantic again. Expect
a greater level of observation on the St. Nazaire docks, and the raids
that historically shut it down in 1942 to be given high priority. Bomber
Command spends a few futile months hammering Western France, perhaps?
Given the ineffectiveness of strategic bombing at this time, though,
this probably won't mean much.
Bombing the German ships in harbor is not strategic
bombing. The British scored several hits on SCHARNHORST
and GNEISENAU at Brest during this period. Besides the
damage to SCHARNHORST noted above, GNEISENAU was hit by
five bombs on July 24.

The threat of _three_ fast capital ships at Brest, one
of them not undergunned, would command a lot of attention
from the RAF.
Post by Andrew Gray
Perhaps the force based at Gibraltar is reinforced in case
she heads south?
Probably so - and the force at Scapa Flow might be reduced.
Also the Far Eastern Fleet might not be reinforced, as the
Battle of the Atlantic would have priority over the Far
East until the latter went hot.
Post by Andrew Gray
The RN would be spread thinner ATL, but unless she breaks out again -
which isn't likely if she needs any major repairs, since by the time
they're complete the dock will have been enthusiastically attacked - I
can't see it having lasting effects on the course of the war.
Depends on what kind of damage BISMARCK has. Bomb and shell
damage is fairly easy to repair and can even be lived with.
Hull damage, from torpedoes or mines, is much more serious.
--
| The shocking lack of a fleet of modern luxury |
| dirigibles is only one of a great many things that |
| are seriously wrong with this here world. |
| -- blogger "Coop" at Positive Ape Index |
Mike Stone
2005-07-22 06:29:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alfred Montestruc
So if after WWII, say the USA asserted that it had sovereignty/dominion
over all of Britain, and held on to airbases even after the British
government told them to get the hell out of it.
So if the British used armed force to run the US Airforce out of an
Airbase in Britain after the USA refused to leave, it would be the
British that started the war where the USA invades Britain and burns
down many cities and kills a large fraction of the population, right?
Depends. If Britain had been _part_ of the US for the past 73 years,
and had ceded the places concerned _to_ the Federal gov't a generation
or so back - and now asserted a legally dubious (to put it mildly)
right to "reclaim" them unilaterally - then quite arguably it would be.

--


Mike Stone - Peterborough, England


Seeking the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and
everything is not a task for cowards.


It is essential to show some forty-twode
l***@hotmail.com
2005-07-21 08:19:33 UTC
Permalink
Sure, 3 million people in chains is not worth that cost in lives.
Right. I'm sure the spirits of the Civil War dead would love that you
believe their efforts were wasted. You strike me as a man who would
never have the courage to sacrifice your life for what you believe in.
You sit here, spewing filth on the anonymous safety of the net. At
least I know cowards like you will never have a chance in hell to have
your craven visions brought to life.
That you believe that the freedom of millions of people of black skin
is not worth the willing sacrifice of those of white is so disgusting
and repulsive it sickens me. You are a crypto-racist with the foulness
to hide it in the language of liberty. At least the real Confederates
were upfront about believing that their slaves were lesser than them,
you wheedle around the edges and say that "a dictator" forced the US
into a bloody war then say the southrons would have magically freed
their slaves out of the goodness of their libertarian hearts. Just take
your white sheets out of the closet already, scumbag. Why don't you
just dig yourself into a deeper hole with some civil war revisionism
right now, eh? I want to laugh at you, you sad pathetic little man,
because that's all you and your beliefs are good for.
Oh wait, you already have.
Mike Stone
2005-07-22 19:19:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Sure, 3 million people in chains is not worth that cost in lives.
Right. I'm sure the spirits of the Civil War dead would love that you
believe their efforts were wasted.
Most of the Civil War dead probably wouldn't give a hoot, as they
weren't fighting primarily to abolish slavery, but to keep the Union
together.

The slaveholders lost their two-legged property through their rebellion
agaisnt the only earthly power in a position to guarantee them the
secure possession of it
Post by l***@hotmail.com
You strike me as a man who would
never have the courage to sacrifice your life for what you believe in.
Most (or at least enough) northerners believed the preservation of the
Union important enough to put their lives on the line for. Only a few
lunatic fringers like John Brown regarded _slavery_, on it own, as a
sufficient reason to do so. The people who gave slavery that kind of
importance were mostly on the other side.



--


Mike Stone - Peterborough, England

Seeking the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and
everything is not a task for cowards.

It is essential to show some forty-twode
l***@hotmail.com
2005-07-22 20:22:59 UTC
Permalink
Mike, I'm not going into the nicieties of the matter. Yes, you're right
from the historical standpoint, but my argument is that Al is a lying
crypto-racist, and I'd rather rub his face in his own ugly and foul
beliefs then argue it cleanly.
He's arguing that the South was in the right and that the Union was a
dictatorial power bent on stripping people of their liberties. The
sheer disgusting hypocrisy of the argument is quite clear in the
context of our times, which is also the one in which he's arguing. In
other words, Al is an excuse for a man living in 2005, spewing forth
opinions that were commonplace in the Jim Crow south and I'm after him
on that.
You'd have to agree that believing the South was the champion of human
liberty against a "dictatorial" North is not only historically wrong,
even if the origin of the war deals more with tariffs and state's
rights, but morally disgusting from the context of our times knowing
what slavery entailed for those enslaved.
Mike Stone
2005-07-22 20:33:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Mike, I'm not going into the nicieties of the matter. Yes, you're right
from the historical standpoint, but my argument is that Al is a lying
crypto-racist, and I'd rather rub his face in his own ugly and foul
beliefs then argue it cleanly.
He says a great deal that I don't go along with either, but I don't think
that getting my own facts wrong is a good move in responding to him - or
indeed to anyone else. YMMV of course.

--


Mike Stone - Peterborough, England

Seeking the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and
everything is not a task for cowards.

It is essential to show some forty-twode
l***@hotmail.com
2005-07-22 21:06:15 UTC
Permalink
Eh, I'm not really getting my facts wrong.
He's arguing that the South was not only the defender of liberty in the
Civil War, but that the North was an immoral dictatorial rule *in our
context*. In other words he saying that from our standpoint in our
times, that's the conclusion he came to.
He says that people dying were not worth it and they wasted their lives
unwillingly and needlessly *from our context*.
That historically the war was only peripherally about slavery does not
detract from the fact that *in our context*, the most important aspect
of the war for our times was ending the injustice of slavery, as
peripheral as it seemed back then. Why is it important today? Because
we recognize overall the massive injustice of slavery and it's price in
human misery and it's complete antipathy towards any notion of human
equality and liberty as we know it today.
That Al believes that the Confederacy was in the right from standpoint
of today and that they were a paragon of ethics who would have
willingly freed the slaves and given them equal rights without having
their arms twisted either by force of arms or complete embargo strikes
me as both delusional and intellectual dishonest, as well as completely
dismissive of what suffering slavery entailed.
Mike Stone
2005-07-23 08:40:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Eh, I'm not really getting my facts wrong.
He's arguing that the South was not only the defender of liberty in the
Civil War, but that the North was an immoral dictatorial rule *in our
context*. In other words he saying that from our standpoint in our
times, that's the conclusion he came to.
But wouldn't he be substantially[1] right, _if_ it were true, as he claims,
that Lincoln and the north started the war?

This is why the arguments about the ownership of Ft Sumter, pedantic as they
probably sound at times, are so important. If the north had started the war,
then the north would have been in the wrong, slavery or no slavery. But it
didn't.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
He says that people dying were not worth it and they wasted their lives
unwillingly and needlessly *from our context*.
"Our context" is totally irrelevant. Neither Montestruc, me nor (beg pardon)
you have any right to an opinion on that, since we aren't the ones who'd do
the dying. The only ones who can judge whether a war is worth fighting are
those who have to fight it, and to judge from the stubborn way both armies
held out through four years of war, it looks as if they mostly did think it
worthwhile.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
That historically the war was only peripherally about slavery does not
detract from the fact that *in our context*, the most important aspect
of the war for our times was ending the injustice of slavery, as
peripheral as it seemed back then. Why is it important today? Because
we recognize overall the massive injustice of slavery and it's price in
human misery and it's complete antipathy towards any notion of human
equality and liberty as we know it today.
But none of which, of course, would in any way have justified the war, if
the slaveholders themselves hadn't started it.

The Constitution recognised slavery, and as long as the South adhered to the
Constitution, they were entitled to keep their slaves, just as the
Brazilians and Cubans were entitled to keep theirs until such time as _they_
decided to abandon the institution. Revolting as slavery was, it was in
itself no excuse for attack from outside, any more than the existence of the
Inquisition, a generation earlier, would have entitled anyone to invade
Spain.

But of course they _didn't_ adhere to the Constitution. They removed
themselves from it (or purported to) and tried to seize US fortresses etc by
force. And once they appealed to force, all bets were off. They were either
rebels, whose constitutional rights were in abeyance until they returned to
their allegiance, or else foreigners who had no constitutional rights at
all. That's the part Al seems unable to face up to.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
That Al believes that the Confederacy was in the right from standpoint
of today and that they were a paragon of ethics who would have
willingly freed the slaves and given them equal rights without having
their arms twisted either by force of arms or complete embargo strikes
me as both delusional and intellectual dishonest, as well as completely
dismissive of what suffering slavery entailed.
If he believes that he's certainly optimistic, though it's not _totally_
impossible. After all, nobody invaded South Africa to get rid of apartheid,
but it's gone just the same. However, as I say it's all irrelevant anyway.
As long as they stayed loyal to the US, they weren't under any obligation to
free their slaves, let alone grant them equal rights. Once they appealed to
force, they were entitled only to what they could _hold_ by force.

[1] Still not 100%, as the Confederate record on civil liberties was no more
wonderful than the Unionist. Indeed, I wonder if a Confederate
"Vallandigham", would have got off as lightly as he did.

--


Mike Stone - Peterborough, England

Seeking the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and
everything is not a task for cowards.

It is essential to show some forty-twode
l***@hotmail.com
2005-07-23 19:47:12 UTC
Permalink
I think I completely lost you when you said that our context was
meaningless.
That in itself shows me that you look upon this as historical
hair-splitting rather than a debate on the morality of the Confederacy
in modern times.
In other words we're debating past each other, and since I have no beef
with you, or any interest in the legal obscurities of the Civil War, it
should probably stop here.
But just let me break it down real easy for you exactly what I'm
saying.
I believe slavery is bad. Real bad.
If I lived in antebellum times, most certainly if I were white, I'd be
a radical abolitionist who'd try to work in the underground railroad.
Technically the underground railroad dealt with "stolen" property and
is thus an illegal operation. I believe that the law can sometimes
condone morally reprehensible acts, and it is the job of moral people
to oppose it by means that cause no irreparable harm to innocents.
Hence, I think John Brown was a dangerous nutbar.
You probably believe slavery is bad, and it must be opposed on legal
principles. Fair enough. I have feeling that even if you felt that way,
if you were in the antebellum south and found out I was moving slaves
to Canada, you probably wouldn't report it.
I also believe that a government or rule that condones slavery is
morally reprehensible beyond any justification (as a 21st century
person who can look back at the details of social history). Hence Al
saying that the Confederacy was morally superior and justified by 21st
century standards disgusts me to the core, since we have the ability to
look at it from our moderately more objective and enlightened
standpoint on race and liberty and find it completely heinous.
Sydney Webb
2005-07-24 02:35:25 UTC
Permalink
***@hotmail.com wrote:

[in response to Mike Stone]

[snip]
Post by l***@hotmail.com
But just let me break it down real easy for you exactly what I'm
saying.
I believe slavery is bad. Real bad.
Lucien, Lucien. You do realise that, by suggesting that human chattel
slavery may have had a downside, you are engaged in advocacy?

No doubt there many others on this newsgroup that are also opposed to
slavery. Equally, there are probably healthy majorities opposed to
genocide, rape and state sponsored cannibalism.

But if we voice our opposition to these things it becomes the thin edge
of the wedge. Why should we not speak out against torture without
judicial warrant, PRC foreign policy, the dangers of cannabis and a dual
state solution in West Asia?

Suddenly, the group becomes a more cerebral version of talk.politics.
At least until the cerebral leave for pastures greener.

No. We are hear to discuss alternative history. Not the morality of
slavery. Or even of theft or investigative journalism.

We may speculate on wider-spread slavery. Or an earlier end to the
practice. We can draw on real life facts about slavery to flesh out
these ATLs. A powerful writer could create images in their readers'
minds that resonate with the writer's own feelings about humans being
bought, sold and used. But it would be AH, not one-upmanship or shrill
self-righteousness.

BTW _in re_ your jousting with Al: When a symbolist poet wrestles in the
mud with a pig the writer becomes covered with obscene, violent
narrative and surreal imagery. And the pig enjoys it.

- Syd
--
"If allohistorians expect to accurately project the thinking of
political strategists, we must learn to avoid the briar patches of
thoughtful analyses."
- Bucky Rea on Disco Era political advisors
l***@hotmail.com
2005-07-24 06:00:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sydney Webb
BTW _in re_ your jousting with Al: When a symbolist poet wrestles in the
mud with a pig the writer becomes covered with obscene, violent
narrative and surreal imagery. And the pig enjoys it.
You know, I was wondering when someone would step into this whole
thing. So, want to be the one who assigns my penance? I listed a few of
the choices early on, or you could be creative and make up one... You
can even put a deadline on it if you want.
I'm going to need it, because making the Phil McGregor drinking game is
getting to be deadly and tempting fun for me.
At least I know that I have to be careful... My road to Usenet
damnation lies in my excessive love for being a caustic flamer. I'd
rather not go dingo, but being aware of my weakness and the fact that I
have the mental profile that's more apt to do it than most of the other
regulars is one major step towards making sure I don't, eh?
In any case I'd like to see how the fires of regular fiction have
tempered my ability to do alt.hist after all these years.
Sydney Webb
2005-07-24 14:18:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Post by Sydney Webb
BTW _in re_ your jousting with Al: When a symbolist poet wrestles in the
mud with a pig the writer becomes covered with obscene, violent
narrative and surreal imagery. And the pig enjoys it.
You know, I was wondering when someone would step into this whole
thing. So, want to be the one who assigns my penance? I listed a few of
the choices early on, or you could be creative and make up one... You
can even put a deadline on it if you want.
I haven't seen our usual penance provider, Ivan, on the group for a few
months now so I guess I can step in, Spike.

Noted your earlier proposals, "be it finishing that DoD guest
installment, finishing that TL I started five years ago and did three
chapters of, or posting the outline notes for my alt.hist graphic novel
project." Hmm, maybe.

What I'd really like to see is a project that uses that religion major
of yours. Not Japan, not Mani, they'd be too easy.

What I've wanted to see for a while is a TL with a PoD in the early
1390s where Jan Hus, as an undergraduate at Prague University, comes
across a work on Sufism. Being the 14th century it isn't necessarily a
scholarly work, it could be a crusader romance. WI this causes the
neurones in Our John's head to fire?

Curious as to the impacts on the 1403 Synod of Prague, an earlier
charismatic renewal, new dimensions in liturgical dance, the mental
well-being of anti-Pope John XXIII and - for the militarists on the
newsgroup - the evolution of the war-wagon.

Rather than seeing the usual suspects tackle this - Arkadiusz and me -
it'd be good to have a fresh face take it on. Think you could do this
one well, Spike.

In your own time.

- Syd
--
"If allohistorians expect to accurately project the thinking of
political strategists, we must learn to avoid the briar patches of
thoughtful analyses."
- Bucky Rea on Disco Era political advisors
l***@hotmail.com
2005-07-24 20:01:28 UTC
Permalink
Ouch, pick one area where I know next to nothing...
No matter, a promise is a promise and I have a lot of work to do if I'm
to do it right.
a***@pacific.net.au
2005-07-24 09:33:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sydney Webb
No. We are hear to discuss alternative history. Not the morality of
slavery. Or even of theft or investigative journalism.
I believe that you are drawing a long bow ... so long that its not
even on the same planet as the rest of us.

The BoP, which is an unenforceable fantasy anyway, doesn't even try to
say what you are saying.

I have no problems with the morality of slavery being discussed in the
general context of alternate history which, as I understand it, is
what is being done.

I will give you full marks for doing no more than making a suggestion,
however.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU), RBB #1 (FASA), Road to Armageddon (PGD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au
The Horny Goat
2005-07-24 15:04:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@pacific.net.au
I believe that you are drawing a long bow ... so long that its not
even on the same planet as the rest of us.
The BoP, which is an unenforceable fantasy anyway, doesn't even try to
say what you are saying.
I have no problems with the morality of slavery being discussed in the
general context of alternate history which, as I understand it, is
what is being done.
But the BoP is not designed to short-circuit discussions of Abe
Lincoln and Jeff Davis - it's designed to short-circuit discussions
like Mr. "Red" Ken Livingstone and some of the more appalling things
he's said in the light of the London bombings or some of the 9/11
conspiracy theorist ramblings you see regularly on alt.history.future.

Sure there are fuzzy areas - like Gerry Adams / Bobby Sands vs. Ian
Paisley / David Trimble (which as I said last week there was no WAY I
was going to discuss Northern Ireland so close to 12th July) but on
the whole the BoP makes us more civilized than would otherwise be.

I really get disturbed about some of the DoD USA stuff I read as it
seems more celebratory than I'm comfortable with but I'm a big boy and
can deal with that. On the flip side I really really like Jake
Featherstone as I think he's a wonderful villain and one of
Turtledove's best characters (as compared to some of the cardboard
cutouts he uses).

My personal view is that if you're looking for a successful US
secessionist scenario you need a pre-1860 PoD and DoD has chosen one
of the more interesting ones. (My own view of DoD is that in that
scenario I would have expected New England to have been more
aggressive about pushing westwards 1815-25 as did Sobel's CNA but I
don't fault the scenario for that)
a***@pacific.net.au
2005-07-24 21:52:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by a***@pacific.net.au
I believe that you are drawing a long bow ... so long that its not
even on the same planet as the rest of us.
The BoP, which is an unenforceable fantasy anyway, doesn't even try to
say what you are saying.
I have no problems with the morality of slavery being discussed in the
general context of alternate history which, as I understand it, is
what is being done.
But the BoP is not designed to short-circuit discussions of Abe
Lincoln and Jeff Davis - it's designed to short-circuit discussions
like Mr. "Red" Ken Livingstone and some of the more appalling things
he's said in the light of the London bombings or some of the 9/11
conspiracy theorist ramblings you see regularly on alt.history.future.
I would agree that is its intent, which is why, if it had any
validity, which it doesn't and can't for reasons we both know and
disagree on, it wouldn't apply to the specific case under discussion.
Post by The Horny Goat
My personal view is that if you're looking for a successful US
secessionist scenario you need a pre-1860 PoD and DoD has chosen one
of the more interesting ones. (My own view of DoD is that in that
scenario I would have expected New England to have been more
aggressive about pushing westwards 1815-25 as did Sobel's CNA but I
don't fault the scenario for that)
I simply don't know enough about US politics in any period to *care*.

To the majorityAustralians, all US politicians are right wing fascist
bastards compared even to our own beloved PM (he keeps on telling us
he is "beloved", or his tame party pollsters do ;-), so its a moot
point as to which one is in charge (or was in charge).

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU), RBB #1 (FASA), Road to Armageddon (PGD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au
The Horny Goat
2005-07-25 00:09:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@pacific.net.au
Post by The Horny Goat
But the BoP is not designed to short-circuit discussions of Abe
Lincoln and Jeff Davis - it's designed to short-circuit discussions
like Mr. "Red" Ken Livingstone and some of the more appalling things
he's said in the light of the London bombings or some of the 9/11
conspiracy theorist ramblings you see regularly on alt.history.future.
I would agree that is its intent, which is why, if it had any
validity, which it doesn't and can't for reasons we both know and
disagree on, it wouldn't apply to the specific case under discussion.
Concerning the BoP while I'm not aware that there is any particular
municipal ordnance against urinating on one's neighbor's lawn at 3 am
it is one of the things one voluntarily refrains from in the interest
of keeping a neighborhood well...neighborly. It's not anything I have
DISCUSSED with my neighbor it is simply understood.

But no - I don't seriously believe USA 1861-65 falls within any
reasonable interpretation of the BoP. If you've got a 'spin' on it
that MIGHT offend I'd be curious (no not you Mr. M!?!) but I'd be
surprised.
Post by a***@pacific.net.au
Post by The Horny Goat
My personal view is that if you're looking for a successful US
secessionist scenario you need a pre-1860 PoD and DoD has chosen one
of the more interesting ones. (My own view of DoD is that in that
scenario I would have expected New England to have been more
aggressive about pushing westwards 1815-25 as did Sobel's CNA but I
don't fault the scenario for that)
I simply don't know enough about US politics in any period to *care*.
To the majorityAustralians, all US politicians are right wing fascist
bastards compared even to our own beloved PM (he keeps on telling us
he is "beloved", or his tame party pollsters do ;-), so its a moot
point as to which one is in charge (or was in charge).
With respect the affairs of the Excited States of Murrica ARE
something any educated member of a western power OUGHT to be aware of
given their relative importance in the grand scheme of things. While
I'm aware that "Living next to you (the USA) is in some ways like
sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly or temperate the
beast, one is affected by every twitch and grunt." was said by one of
OUR prime ministers rather than one of yours I do believe it could be
fairly said of Oz as much as of Canada. I'm pretty sure for instance
I'd know who was GOP candidate in 1948 though not who his running mate
was - if I needed to I could readily look it up.

(http://www.nytimes.com/learning/students/quiz/president1948.html if
you want a "pop quiz")

I don't pretend to have the voluminous knowledge of the ACW as some
posters here and if one of them told me Vicksburg was fought before
Gettysburg (I'm pretty sure it wasn't - but would have to look it up
to be sure - I do know both were in the summer of 1863) I might well
believe them - but I would expect you to know that DoD and Sobel's CNA
both refer to ATLs.
Alfred Montestruc
2005-07-25 00:25:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by a***@pacific.net.au
Post by The Horny Goat
But the BoP is not designed to short-circuit discussions of Abe
Lincoln and Jeff Davis - it's designed to short-circuit discussions
like Mr. "Red" Ken Livingstone and some of the more appalling things
he's said in the light of the London bombings or some of the 9/11
conspiracy theorist ramblings you see regularly on alt.history.future.
I would agree that is its intent, which is why, if it had any
validity, which it doesn't and can't for reasons we both know and
disagree on, it wouldn't apply to the specific case under discussion.
Concerning the BoP while I'm not aware that there is any particular
municipal ordnance against urinating on one's neighbor's lawn at 3 am
it is one of the things one voluntarily refrains from in the interest
of keeping a neighborhood well...neighborly. It's not anything I have
DISCUSSED with my neighbor it is simply understood.
But no - I don't seriously believe USA 1861-65 falls within any
reasonable interpretation of the BoP. If you've got a 'spin' on it
that MIGHT offend I'd be curious (no not you Mr. M!?!) but I'd be
surprised.
Post by a***@pacific.net.au
Post by The Horny Goat
My personal view is that if you're looking for a successful US
secessionist scenario you need a pre-1860 PoD and DoD has chosen one
of the more interesting ones.
The CSA could have won. If it was going to do so it needed to be far
more agressive early on. As in following up routing Yankees during
first Manassas and exploiting every possible advantage from it.
b***@forpresident.com
2005-07-25 00:53:37 UTC
Permalink
I think a Confederate victory is ASB (as well as undesirable), but to
have the Confederacy do better in the ACW with a post-Sumter POD, the
best bet is for there to be a fire or some other sort of disaster in
Richmond which kills Davis, Stephens, and all of the CSA cabinet except
for Judah P. Benjamin. Leaving out any questions of the morality of the
southern cause, Benjamin seemed to be the only capable politician
amongst the CSA leadership.

I don't know what the CSA constitution's procedure for succession was
like, but with a different political leadership the CSA will do better.
Alfred Montestruc
2005-07-26 05:28:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@forpresident.com
I think a Confederate victory is ASB (as well as undesirable),
It is important for Union success early in the war to have the job not
look impossible to the public. If after first Manassas, the
Confederate leaders had not stopped to regroup and only slowly followed
routing Union troops, but had aggressively followed them taking
Washington DC was possible given the horrible moral situation the Union
side had in that battle, and the confederates flush with victory. If
Washington falls, Lincoln may be captured, and regardless his
credibility is shot. I anticipate a peace conference.
Post by b***@forpresident.com
but to
have the Confederacy do better in the ACW with a post-Sumter POD, the
best bet is for there to be a fire or some other sort of disaster in
Richmond which kills Davis, Stephens, and all of the CSA cabinet except
for Judah P. Benjamin. Leaving out any questions of the morality of the
southern cause, Benjamin seemed to be the only capable politician
amongst the CSA leadership.
I don't know what the CSA constitution's procedure for succession was
like, but with a different political leadership the CSA will do better.
Wesley Taylor
2005-07-26 06:17:03 UTC
Permalink
On 25 Jul 2005 22:28:37 -0700, "Alfred Montestruc"
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Post by b***@forpresident.com
I think a Confederate victory is ASB (as well as undesirable),
It is important for Union success early in the war to have the job not
look impossible to the public. If after first Manassas, the
Confederate leaders had not stopped to regroup and only slowly followed
routing Union troops, but had aggressively followed them taking
Washington DC was possible given the horrible moral situation the Union
side had in that battle, and the confederates flush with victory. If
Washington falls, Lincoln may be captured, and regardless his
credibility is shot. I anticipate a peace conference.
Not in keeping with Union character. What is far more likely is an
outraged response with Hamiln as acting President raising troops as
fast as possible and, should Lincoln actually be harmed, avenging him
in the blood of as much of the South as they could.

In other words, taking the other hand out from behind the Union back
and soundly thrashing the South to within an inch of their collective
lives. Kind of like what was done to Sumner.
Alfred Montestruc
2005-07-26 06:28:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wesley Taylor
On 25 Jul 2005 22:28:37 -0700, "Alfred Montestruc"
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Post by b***@forpresident.com
I think a Confederate victory is ASB (as well as undesirable),
It is important for Union success early in the war to have the job not
look impossible to the public. If after first Manassas, the
Confederate leaders had not stopped to regroup and only slowly followed
routing Union troops, but had aggressively followed them taking
Washington DC was possible given the horrible moral situation the Union
side had in that battle, and the confederates flush with victory. If
Washington falls, Lincoln may be captured, and regardless his
credibility is shot. I anticipate a peace conference.
Not in keeping with Union character.
The war was not as popular as you make out. Why do you think Lincoln
had something like 200 newspapers shut down?
Post by Wesley Taylor
What is far more likely is an
outraged response
Not if the Lincoln/radical Republican propaganda machine is crippled by
the capture of Lincoln and some other influencial politicians, and he
is not ordering the arrest of anyone who advocates a peaceful
soulution.
Post by Wesley Taylor
with Hamiln as acting President raising troops as
fast as possible and, should Lincoln actually be harmed,
No need to.
Post by Wesley Taylor
avenging him
in the blood of as much of the South as they could.
In other words, taking the other hand out from behind the Union back
and soundly thrashing the South to within an inch of their collective
lives. Kind of like what was done to Sumner.
Mike Stone
2005-07-26 08:38:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Post by b***@forpresident.com
I think a Confederate victory is ASB (as well as undesirable),
It is important for Union success early in the war to have the job not
look impossible to the public. If after first Manassas, the
Confederate leaders had not stopped to regroup and only slowly followed
routing Union troops, but had aggressively followed them taking
Washington DC was possible given the horrible moral situation the Union
side had in that battle, and the confederates flush with victory.
They still have to get across the Potomac, which is quite wide at that point
iirc. There were just a few bridges, easily defended. No matter how fast
they move, they can't just walk into it.

Afaics, they would have to cross the river higher up, near Harpers Ferry or
somewhere, and then turn east. This gives the Union Army plenty of time to
pull itself together and find a strong defensive position near the capital.
It doesn't have to _go_ anywhere far. Also, assuming McDowell is fired, they
are probaly now under McClellan, who whatever his faults was a perfectly
good _defensive_ player. It was aggression that he had a problem with. I
would anticipate soemthing like Antietam a year or so early.



If
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Washington falls, Lincoln may be captured, and regardless his
credibility is shot. I anticipate a peace conference.
Why anticipate any such thing? Numerous foreign commentators in the US at
the time of Bull Run commented upon the northern dtermination to fight on.
This is only weeks after Ft Sumter, when everyone is still fresh, and there
was no more likelihood of the north suing for peace over losing one border
skirmish, than there was of the south doing so had it gone the other way.
After all, the US didn't sue for peace in 1814 just because a _British_ Army
had temporarily occupied Washington.

As for Lincoln, even if he has been captured (and why should he be? Madison
wasn't in 1814) is there any reason why Hamlin can't issue whatever orders
are needed?


--


Mike Stone - Peterborough, England

Seeking the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and
everything is not a task for cowards.

It is essential to show some forty-twode
Mike Stone
2005-07-26 10:41:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@forpresident.com
I think a Confederate victory is ASB (as well as undesirable), but to
have the Confederacy do better in the ACW with a post-Sumter POD, the
best bet is for there to be a fire or some other sort of disaster in
Richmond which kills Davis, Stephens, and all of the CSA cabinet except
for Judah P. Benjamin. Leaving out any questions of the morality of the
southern cause, Benjamin seemed to be the only capable politician
amongst the CSA leadership.
I don't know what the CSA constitution's procedure for succession was
like, but with a different political leadership the CSA will do better.
They didn't have any line of succession after the Vice President, afaik.

Actually, I'm not sure that killing Davis really helps. Apart from Benjamin
(and I don't really see them choosing a Jewish President) he was probably as
good as any of the available choices. Didn't Lee reportedly say that he knew
no-one who could ahve done better than Davis, and few who could have done as
well?

I'm quite intrigued by the thought of Alec Stephens becoming President
though. wonder how that would ahve worked out.
b***@forpresident.com
2005-07-26 19:46:17 UTC
Permalink
I never heard that Lee quote. As you point out, they wouldn't choose
Benjamin, and
out of the others, Davis probably was the best of a pretty rotten
bunch.
The Horny Goat
2005-07-25 01:34:32 UTC
Permalink
On 24 Jul 2005 17:25:14 -0700, "Alfred Montestruc"
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Post by The Horny Goat
My personal view is that if you're looking for a successful US
secessionist scenario you need a pre-1860 PoD and DoD has chosen one
of the more interesting ones.
The CSA could have won. If it was going to do so it needed to be far
more agressive early on. As in following up routing Yankees during
first Manassas and exploiting every possible advantage from it.
So what does that imply - more cavalry?
Alfred Montestruc
2005-07-26 05:30:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
On 24 Jul 2005 17:25:14 -0700, "Alfred Montestruc"
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Post by The Horny Goat
My personal view is that if you're looking for a successful US
secessionist scenario you need a pre-1860 PoD and DoD has chosen one
of the more interesting ones.
The CSA could have won. If it was going to do so it needed to be far
more agressive early on. As in following up routing Yankees during
first Manassas and exploiting every possible advantage from it.
So what does that imply - more cavalry?
More agressive and bloody minded officers, willing in the early days of
the war to follow routing union troops as far as possible and take
political and military objectives outside of the Confederacy.
Mike Stone
2005-07-26 08:44:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Post by The Horny Goat
So what does that imply - more cavalry?
More agressive and bloody minded officers, willing in the early days of
the war to follow routing union troops as far as possible and take
political and military objectives outside of the Confederacy.
What objectives were there after Washington (whose capture would be more a
blow to northern pride than anything - it wasn't all that _strategically_
important) that were within reach?

The next important cities - Baltimore and Philadelphia - were _much_ further
north, and the CSA would have to stretch its lines of communication
something awful in order to reach them; and even if it _did_, there would
still be a vast amount of space into which Union forces could retreat. Think
Charles XII and Napoleon in Russia.

--


Mike Stone - Peterborough, England

Seeking the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and
everything is not a task for cowards.

It is essential to show some forty-twode
a***@pacific.net.au
2005-07-25 10:32:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by a***@pacific.net.au
To the majorityAustralians, all US politicians are right wing fascist
bastards compared even to our own beloved PM (he keeps on telling us
he is "beloved", or his tame party pollsters do ;-), so its a moot
point as to which one is in charge (or was in charge).
With respect the affairs of the Excited States of Murrica ARE
something any educated member of a western power OUGHT to be aware of
given their relative importance in the grand scheme of things. While
I'm aware that "Living next to you (the USA) is in some ways like
sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly or temperate the
beast, one is affected by every twitch and grunt." was said by one of
OUR prime ministers rather than one of yours I do believe it could be
And one of our suck ups ... er, PMs said "All the way with LBJ" ...
thereby embarrassing most Australians as much as, evidently, it did
LBJ ;-P

Doesn't mean we care about the intricacies of what amounts to right
[1] or far right (or really far out right) politics that exists in the
US at any given moment beyond, perhaps, who the Prez, Prez of Vice,
and a few other key fascist advisors are.

Most of us, forex, could give a r*****k about the US elections, when
they come around ... they could be covered on page 10, in a couple of
paragraphs, down the bottom of the page, and that would satisfy what
little interest in which right wing pollie is likely to win or not.

Perennially, however, we get front page coverage about stuff we really
*do NOT care about*, and there are, perennially, letters to the Editor
complaining of this.
Post by The Horny Goat
fairly said of Oz as much as of Canada. I'm pretty sure for instance
I'd know who was GOP candidate in 1948 though not who his running mate
was - if I needed to I could readily look it up.
I wouldn't have a clue. Truman was Prez, that's all I know offhand. In
the unlikely event I needed to know more I would look up an
encyclopaedia or do a google search.
Post by The Horny Goat
I don't pretend to have the voluminous knowledge of the ACW as some
posters here and if one of them told me Vicksburg was fought before
Gettysburg (I'm pretty sure it wasn't - but would have to look it up
to be sure - I do know both were in the summer of 1863) I might well
believe them - but I would expect you to know that DoD and Sobel's CNA
both refer to ATLs.
I'd know more about the ACW or even the Revolutionary war, or the War
with Mexico mainly because military history is my main area of
interest.

[1] Apologies to all Americans who, one presumes, actually can and do
know that there is a difference between their various brands of
politicians. Its just that, to outsiders, at least Aussie outsiders,
that *compared to our political parties*, you're all far right wing in
most things (yes, even the Democrats). Though, personally, I think
most of us would probably vote Democrat as the lesser of two evils if
we had to.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU), RBB #1 (FASA), Road to Armageddon (PGD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au
Kaiser Wilhelm III
2005-07-26 07:27:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
I really get disturbed about some of the DoD USA stuff I read as it
seems more celebratory than I'm comfortable with but I'm a big boy and
can deal with that.
One of the drawbacks about writing through the perspective of ATL characters
is that, well, things are seen through their eyes... No matter how
reprehensible many of the DoD USA characters are (and they are
reprehensible, in spades), they don't think of themselves as villains,
usually.
Post by The Horny Goat
On the flip side I really really like Jake
Featherstone as I think he's a wonderful villain and one of
Turtledove's best characters (as compared to some of the cardboard
cutouts he uses).
My personal view is that if you're looking for a successful US
secessionist scenario you need a pre-1860 PoD and DoD has chosen one
of the more interesting ones. (My own view of DoD is that in that
scenario I would have expected New England to have been more
aggressive about pushing westwards 1815-25 as did Sobel's CNA but I
don't fault the scenario for that)
Well, New England did actually push westward in some respects in
1815-1825... into Michigan. That's why, although it was jointly claimed by
Britain and New England, it ended up being ceded to New England. (That and
for various political trade-offs). They couldn't push further west until
1837 because the Indian Confederation was in the way, and Britain wanted to
keep them as a buffer state. Post-1837 a lot of New Englanders did move
west... but they mostly became Canadians.

Cheers,
Kaiser Wilhelm III
j***@gmail.com
2005-07-27 19:20:24 UTC
Permalink
If the north had started the war, then the north would have been in the > wrong, slavery or no slavery. But it didn't.
Why Sumter should be so exclusive focused on is puzzling, though.
As I've posted previously:

Plenty of Federal territories in other seceding states were invaded and
federal property stolen without the slightest fig-leaf of legality,
since the secessionist militias invaded _before_ any legislation on
secession had even been passed. Forts Morgan and Gaines (Alabama), the
Apalachicola arsenal and Fort Marion (Florida), and Forts Jackson and
St. Philip, the Baton Rouge arsenal, and the US Marine Hospital in New
Orleans (Louisiana) were all seized before the respective states had
passed secession ordinances.

Nor was Sumter the first exchange of fire: the Federal defenders of
Fort Barrancas, Florida, repelled an invasion attempt with musketry on
January 8, and on January 9 South Carolina militia opened fire upon
(and hit, with minor damage) the US-flagged ship _Star of the West_
attempting to resupply Fort Sumter.

The retrospective focus on Charleston and Sumter is at best misleading.
By the diplomatic standards of the 19th century the CSA had performed
many acts of war upon the USA well before then. (Although it's worth
noting that the term "act of war" is not precisely defined in
international law or practice.)

---
Joseph Eros
"Scientists want to know the dirt on Eros"
Mike Stone
2005-07-27 20:13:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Why Sumter should be so exclusive focused on is puzzling, though.
Plenty of Federal territories in other seceding states were invaded and
federal property stolen without the slightest fig-leaf of legality,
since the secessionist militias invaded _before_ any legislation on
secession had even been passed. Forts Morgan and Gaines (Alabama), the
Apalachicola arsenal and Fort Marion (Florida), and Forts Jackson and
St. Philip, the Baton Rouge arsenal, and the US Marine Hospital in New
Orleans (Louisiana) were all seized before the respective states had
passed secession ordinances.
Nor was Sumter the first exchange of fire: the Federal defenders of
Fort Barrancas, Florida, repelled an invasion attempt with musketry on
January 8, and on January 9 South Carolina militia opened fire upon
(and hit, with minor damage) the US-flagged ship _Star of the West_
attempting to resupply Fort Sumter.
The retrospective focus on Charleston and Sumter is at best misleading.
By the diplomatic standards of the 19th century the CSA had performed
many acts of war upon the USA well before then. (Although it's worth
noting that the term "act of war" is not precisely defined in
international law or practice.)
No doubt, but Sumter (and Pickens) was the first such instance that could be
resisted in any serious way - or at all events the firat that _was_. So it
caught peoples' imaginations in a way that the earlier incidents hadn't.

--


Mike Stone - Peterborough, England

Seeking the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and
everything is not a task for cowards.

It is essential to show some forty-twode
Alfred Montestruc
2005-07-23 23:57:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Stone
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Sure, 3 million people in chains is not worth that cost in lives.
Right. I'm sure the spirits of the Civil War dead would love that you
believe their efforts were wasted.
Most of the Civil War dead probably wouldn't give a hoot, as they
weren't fighting primarily to abolish slavery, but to keep the Union
together.
Yankees yes, Southerners were mostly fighting to defend their homes.
Post by Mike Stone
The slaveholders lost their two-legged property through their rebellion
agaisnt the only earthly power in a position to guarantee them the
secure possession of it
That is a crock. First off it was not a rebellion, second off had the
US not won the war, or were a negociated settlement reached, or if the
war never started, what power would have ended slavery other than
economics?
Post by Mike Stone
Post by l***@hotmail.com
You strike me as a man who would
never have the courage to sacrifice your life for what you believe in.
Most (or at least enough) northerners believed the preservation of the
Union important enough to put their lives on the line for.
Stirred on by Radical Republicans asserting that the south was
insulting their manhood by firing on the flag and the like.
Post by Mike Stone
Only a few
lunatic fringers like John Brown regarded _slavery_, on it own, as a
sufficient reason to do so. The people who gave slavery that kind of
importance were mostly on the other side.
Not in the sense you seem to mean. They fought to protect their homes,
families and self-determination. As in preserve the value of their
votes to seceed.
j***@gmail.com
2005-07-27 19:28:21 UTC
Permalink
They [in the CSA] fought to protect their homes,
families and self-determination. As in preserve the value of their
votes to seceed.
And the secession, as plenty of southerners frankly stated at the time,
had been done in order to protect, preserve, and extend the institution
of slavery:

For instance, the magazine _Southern Punch_ (published in Richmond
printed an article in September 1864 which included the following:

"'The people of the South,' says a contemporary, 'are not fighting for
slavery, but for independence.' Let us look into the matter. It is an
easy task, we think, to show up this new-fangled heresy--a heresy
calculated to do us no good, for it cannot deceive foreign statesmen
nor peoples, nor mislead anyone here nor in Yankeeland . . . Our
doctrine is this: WE ARE FIGHTING FOR INDEPENDENCE THAT OUR GREAT AND
NECESSARY DOMESTIC INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY SHALL BE PRESERVED, and for
the preservation of other institutions of which slavery is the
groundwork."

["The New Heresy," _Southern Punch_ 9/19/1864, p.2. Quoted in John M.
Coski, _The Confederate Battle Flag: America's Most Embattled Emblem_
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005), p. 25. Source note on
p. 316. Emphasis in the original.]

---
Joseph Eros
"Scientists want to know the dirt on Eros" --Boston Globe
l***@hotmail.com
2005-07-21 08:51:10 UTC
Permalink
So, the willing sacrifices of many are not worth the freedom of
millions of blacks.
That's essentially what you're saying. Yeah sooooo fucking
"libertarian". Liberty only for folks with the right color skin, eh? At
least the fucking Confederates were honest about their ideas about the
inferiority of other races.
So, not only are you a crypto-racist, you're also a historical
revisionist, and a coward who doesn't know what it means to sacrifice
your life for something. At least I have nothing to fear. You and your
craven ilk will only pervert the word liberty nowhere else than on the
internet.
Just take your white sheets out of the closet already and stop
distorting history and the meaning of freedom.
Just keep on going little man. Lie about your true feelings towards
those with darker skins, distort history, and dig the hole deeper.
You're a pathetic little man, and I look forward to it. I want to laugh
at you while you bleet your vacuous little nothings. I want to see how
pathetic the face of racism is, half-hidden and scared shitless,
wrapping itself in a demented vision of liberty and justice for all. I
want to laugh while I envision you typing away with a little florid
face, safe behind your monitor and keyboard thousands of miles away,
far from my face. I want to mock your half-hearted insults of me. I
invite you to give me the pleasure of seeing you squirm by trying to
continue.
Alfred Montestruc
2005-07-24 03:34:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Gee Al, multiplying off-topic threads in order to further smear shit
around the group! Goes to show how much you care about newsgroup health
and on-topicality.
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Which proves that you, like Coyu, are trash.
No,
Yes, and all that I write about events in history that took place over
140 years ago have no bering on whether Coyu breaking into other
people's property is crimnal or not.

Everyone who took part in that war is long dead, and it is of at most
academic interest to sane people. I do think that important lessons
can be drawn from that period of history, but that does not change the
fact that a private person breaking and entering someone else's
property without ay semblence of a legal reason is wrong and criminal.
Loading...