War.... (Historical: 9/11 discussion thread)

[tesco samoa]

And if you go here http://artbell.com/letters21.html
you can see the devil ( as we all know has 2 horns a tail and what looks like a broken wrench)

Now I know I am going to draw rath here. But come on. Stuff like this really gets under my skin. It's horrible to look at these pictures. But even worse for people to take these pictures of pain and suffering and change them like they would change any other pictures.

Sorry just really upsets me.

No offence.

------------------
L? GdX $ Fr C++ SdT T+ Sf* Tcp+ A M++ MpTM ROTS Pw+ Fq+ Nd Rp++ G+

[CNCRaymond]

I thought it looked like fire to me, but nevertheless, people are entitled to their opinions. I thought it was a nice site, and passed it along. I am not making any judgments about the person who "saw" something, for that would be in bad taste, and despite what has happened, if seeing something that is or is not there helps him to heal, then so be it.

[This message has been edited by CNCRaymond (edited 15 September 2001).]

[Cyrien]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
Geoschmo,

Abraham Lincoln, and his platform included the abolition of slavery. As you have noted already, this is the one issue that would have defused the whole situation if it was removed. Most Northerners were determined to end it, and the most Southerners were determined not to let it be ended.

---

I was going to post something earlier but the darn thing crashed and I lost everything I had typed after being close to completion but I feel a need to correct you here.

Lincoln did NOT run on an Abolition platform. He and many others felt that Abolition, the belief that all slavery everywhere should be abolited by law in all states and territories in the US, was unconstitutional... as it was due to the fact that it was protected in the Constitution in several locations. This meant that nothing short of an amendment could end slavery and of course the Southern states while lower in population in the house still had equal numbers in the Senate.

This brings us to Lincolns party platform. His was the Free Soil Platform. Under this slavery would be Banned from the Territories and not the States. In this way they hoped to lead slavery to a "natural death" as eventually the territories became free states and eventually would go to the Senate and gain a majority capable of passing an amendment. In point of fact the idea that such a law as Free Soil would be passed was rather slim and remote based on the fact that the South DID have a strong holding in the Senate. The Civil War was largely due to paranoia.

And just to be complete here the spark that set it all off was the Mexican American War and the new territories it brought into the US, which rendered all the old half measures and bargains on how to divide the US between slave and free mute and obsolete as they didn't deal with that area.



[This message has been edited by Cyrien (edited 15 September 2001).]

[Baron Munchausen]

Geoschmo,

Well, here we have the same disagreement more than a century after the war is over. Amendment X is in plain English, I don't see how you can misinterpret it. I suppose this issue will come up again, as the Federal government grows more and more tyrranical some states are likely to secede again one day, though not in the immediate future with this crisis. I expect some of the Western states to try before this century is over, though.

Here's an interesting test: If the issue had NOT been slavery, if there were no slaves in the South, do you think the North would have fought the Civil War to keep those states in the Union? I don't think so.

Cyrien,

I was not aware that slavery was "protected" anywhere in the Constitution. The only mention that I was aware of was the "three-fifths compromise" that made slaves count as three people for every five slaves in the calculation of population for representation. I would hardly call that "protection". Where else is slavery mentioned?

Ok, I didn't have an actual copy of Lincoln's platform so I didn't know the legal niceties of it. But anyway, he was definitely out to end slavery if by a more gradual means than directly outlawing it. Some have held otherwise because of his legal maneuvers around Emancipation.

Finally, though, I'd hardly call the Mexican War the 'spark'. More than a decade passed before the war broke out. The new territories increased the pressure, but it was the Dred Scott decision that shattered the political landscape. John Brown's raid didn't help, either, of course.

[This message has been edited by Baron Munchausen (edited 15 September 2001).]

[Cyrien]

Article I
Section 9. The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

Article IV
Section 2 No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.


In addition to the mentioned three fifths clause.

While not explicitly or directly protected in the Constitution (beyond 1808 that is) though many politicians of the time argued that it was protected by the ratification of the Constitution by those States at the time having signed it being under Slavery and thus recieving a protection from it in addition to several clauses related to property and trade and other prohibitions that could be viewed as directly affecting slavery due to the argument they are essential to the Economy of the South and that by going the route of abolition it would show trade preference to the North.

No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another.

In such ways was it argued that the Constitution directly protected the rights of the Slave states. In any case this does not in any way affect the historical accuracy of what Lincoln ran under and what the Republican Party of the time supported, which was NOT abolition but Free Soil which would eventually and slowly lead to abolition.

EDITED

The 10th Amendment is not seen today as limiting the authority of the federal government where the exercise of its powers might interfere with those of the states. The reverse was the case, however, from the time that Roger Brooke Taney became (1836) chief justice of the Supreme Court until a century later. During that time, in famous cases such as Collector v. Day (1871), Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918), and Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States (1935), the 10th Amendment had been cited to curtail powers of Congress.



[This message has been edited by Cyrien (edited 15 September 2001).]

[tesco samoa]

Damn. EDIT++<Contenintal>(Spelling) is going to lay off 12000 people.

------------------
L? GdX $ Fr C++ SdT T+ Sf* Tcp+ A M++ MpTM ROTS Pw+ Fq+ Nd Rp++ G+

[This message has been edited by tesco samoa (edited 16 September 2001).]

[Baron Munchausen]

quote:

---

Article I
Section 9. The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

Article IV
Section 2 No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

---

Well, you never know when you might learn something. I can now see how the Dred Scott decision came about. The Missouri Compromise really was unconstitutional. It's interesting that Article 4, Section 2 was not totally "superseded" by the 13th Amendment. They merely outlawed 'involuntary' servitude. You could still find situations where that could be applied in law today.

And I find it interesting that Amendment X was interpreted as I suggest during the period when the Civil War was fought.

[This message has been edited by Baron Munchausen (edited 15 September 2001).]

[Taqwus]

Ah, foobar -- it's now widely reported that Masood's family has confirmed his death resulting from injuries caused at a press conference a week (?) or so ago -- two people with a bomb in their camera got in by posing as journalists.

FYI, Masood was, perhaps, the most important leader in unifying the Afghan anti-Taliban opposition forces, which had been highly fragmented in the interval between the withdrawal of the Soviet Union and the sudden appearance of the Taliban movement. His coalition only controls an estimated 5% of the country, but if the US were to get off the fence and actively support an anti-Taliban faction (rather than mere verbal criticism and lack of diplomatic recognition, while watching them take over), or go further and attempt to install its own government, Masood would have been a logical choice for a major participant.

------------------
-- The thing that goes bump in the night

[Baron Munchausen]

quote:

---

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
Damn. UA is going to lay off 12000 people.

---

Yep, the consequences of this attack are going to be very real. People are now afraid to travel and will only do so when necessary, at least for a while. The whole airline industry is facing collapse. Bush has put on a decent 'brave face' for these first few days, but he's really going to have his leadership abilities tested keeping things together.

What worries me is this is also a "propoganda coup" for the terrorists. They will now be 10 times more popular among the radicalized portion of the Islamic populations and be able to attract more recruits and money. I hope the non-radical governments will not be intimidated and will cooperate to stop them.

[CW]

quote:

---

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
Damn. UA is going to lay off 12000 people.

---

And Ansett Australia Airways here in Aust just went over the top, that's 16000 jobs gone. One year ago there were 4 big airlines flying domestic routes here, one year later 2 were gone... And that marks the third large corporation going broke this year I think, after One Tel and HIH. Time to talk about voting out the current government!