Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Of course it did. Where else would it come from but the very fields the hands worked? Goes to the same mills, the same looms, the same product.
Sort of like arguing that the same cotton that goes into to making a Cathcart shirt is the same cotton when it comes out as a Calvin Klein dress shirt.
Sort of like arguing that the same cotton that goes into to making a Cathcart shirt is the same cotton when it comes out as a Calvin Klein dress shirt.
Do you plan on getting serious anytime soon?
Guess what?
There's absolutely no difference. That's why I wouldn't waste my money on the more expensive clothing. $100 jeans aren't worth the money when you go to Wal-Mart and buy the same darn thing for $15 or so.
First of all, you are a well recognized "federalist", taking the government position on almost everything today,
An unapologetically at that, although that wasn't always the case. In the early 60's I was taught the liberal view that the Civil War was a war to end slavery, by the late 1960's and early 70's I bought into the neo-Marxist analysis that the Civil War was nothing more than a struggle between the American bourgeoisie, but then I grew up having my beliefs rigorously challenged by several imminent professors of American history. Now I simply let the facts, of which I have provided ample examples, speak for themselves.
Quote:
Secondly, States Rights are not "hogwash". It was the entire intent of the constitution to limit federal power, and to preserve that "hogwash".
Sorry, but another historical fiction dreamed up by neo-Confederates, segregationist and neo-reactionaries. If the purpose of the Constitution was to limit federal power, why devise the Constitution at all since the Articles of Confederation vested virtually all powers in the states to begin with? No, the Constitution was drafted for the very purpose of vesting supreme powers with the Federal government. What limitations that have been places upon federal powers was the result of political compromise to get the best deal for a strong federal government when small states felt threatened, not by the proposed federal government but by states with larger populations, hence the obscene designation of slaves as being 3/5th human for the sole purpose of artificially inflating the representation, and power, of slave states in the proposed congress!
Quote:
So by saying this, you declare the constitution "hogwash", which isn't surprising, coming from a leftist socialist.
When all else fails play the red card, sorry but that doesn't wash. I am a federal constitutionalist as a result of a, having served in the U.S. military and for having spent time in nations where I had the unfortunate opportunity to observe what happens when the military left or right, decides that it no longer has to abide by the outcome of the democratic process. If there is anything about America or American history that I am most proud of is, with the exception of the Civil War, the U.S. military has NEVER attempted to thwart the primacy of the nations democratically elected leadership.
Had the southern states even made the slightest attempt to disunite through the proper legislative bodies or the courts, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Instead, the South not liking the outcome of a constitutionally sanctioned election chose, to unilaterally, and I might add undemocratically, break a compact between the People of the United States. Who elected the commissioners of the secession conventions, the people? No. Who elected the government of the Confederacy, the people, No! When was secession put to a vote of the people of the South, never. Yet this junta of southern slave owners dare speak of democracy and liberty? Puleeeze!
No sir, when it comes to a Constitutional democracy, I am a penultimate conservative. As Lincoln put it:
"Plainly, the central idea of secession, is the essence of anarchy. A majority, held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it, does, of necessity, fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible; the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left."
Quote:
You see, the slavery issue was simply a pretense utilized by a shrewd Lincoln ... he needed popular support from the people for military action against the South, and the people were unlikely to accept the economic interests of the industrialists as a good enough reason, given that they had little to gain from it.
Again, a single primary source, one contemporaneous citation which demonstratively contradicts the historical record?
Quote:
So he appealed to the sense of morality, as the slave holders in the North were much smaller in number, and generally viewed as elitists by the rest, anyway.
When was this, in March of 1861 after seven states had seceded prior to his inauguration where he stated the following:
[indent][indent]Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States, that by the accession of a Republican Administration, their property, and their peace, and personal security, are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed, and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this, and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. And more than this, they placed in the platform, for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves, and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."
Lincoln then goes on to reassure that South that he would uphold the despised Fugitive Slave Act that imposed repugnant limits on the rights of northern states to oppose slavery;
"There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:
"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."
As for your unsupported and ahistorical argument that Lincoln hoped to forestall a court sanctioning of secession, again, in his 1st Inaugural Address provided the rebellious states a peaceful avenue to do so.
That's why I wouldn't waste my money on the more expensive clothing. $100 jeans aren't worth the money when you go to Wal-Mart and buy the same darn thing for $15 or so.
Well if you are smart about it, you can wait a year, and then buy a better quality item at Wal-Mart.
(disclaimer I have no love for Calvin Klein nor do I buy his products, too many logos)
All product is identical. One does not have higher quality than the next.
I get it, if a piece of clothing is made out of some fibrous material and has some form of fastener it the same as any other piece of fabric. Gotcha, no need to expound on this any further. Thanks.
Sort of like arguing that the same cotton that goes into to making a Cathcart shirt is the same cotton when it comes out as a Calvin Klein dress shirt.
Do you plan on getting serious anytime soon?
Maybe you should special order some those coarse "negro cloth" shirts for him.
Can you prove all the fabric came from the same textile mill? Including the imported fabrics?
Can you prove all were processed in exactly the same way, and had the same thread count, yarn count, etc.?
Can you prove all the cotton produced in every region was equal in quality? Same for silk? Wool?
Maybe you don't understand that there are varying properties in fibers and fabrics. Common sense dictates that ignorance is no excuse.
What imports? The major export of the colonies was cotton, they weren't going to import it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
