|
So when the North attacked the South, with out provocation, their only goal was to free the slaves. Had the South just ended slavery at the outset of the conflict, the North would have removed it's troops from the South and we would have lived happily ever after as two countries.
Actually the South fired first, I don't care how Lucas tries to change it. :) Fort Sumpter anyone?
So when the North attacked the South, with out provocation, their only goal was to free the slaves. Had the South just ended slavery at the outset of the conflict, the North would have removed it's troops from the South and we would have lived happily ever after as two countries.Actually the South fired first, I don't care how Lucas tries to change it. :) Fort Sumpter anyone?
Did the Federal troops leave when asked nicely to do so? Nope.
Did Lincoln receive the diplomats sent to resolve the situation? Nope.Did Lincoln not order even more troops and supplies to the fort? Yep.
Was Lincoln purposely baiting? Yep.
|
|
That is one point of view. The other is that the South did not have the legal right to seceed. Moreover, Fort Sumpter was Federal territory, regardless of what decisions the state government made. Therefore President Lincoln was fully in his right as Commander in Chief to refuse to turn over a fully equipped Federal fort over to a group of mutineers who had no legal right to demand they abandon it any way.
|
|
Just in case anyone wonders:
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
...This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Because all state official swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, and have done so since ratification, the various legislatures had no Constitutional or legal authority to declare themselves independent. In fact, according to Article 10, they were expressly forbidden from doing so. The moment they did they were traitors and mutineers. It's a fact.
|
In all the back and forth about the causes of the American Civil War, I feel I must state this and you are all free to take or leave it as you see fit.
To make the statement "The American Civil War was because of slavery" is a simplification to the extreme. To make the statement "The American Civil War was not fought because of slavery" is almost as much a simplification (though more on track).
The bottom line is the issue of slavery was tied into many of the other reasons which led the US to war with itself. The issue of states rights is a valid one (and still is) but slavery was tied into the view of states rights as it was, at the time, a right of the states to determine legislation that would impact its holdings and citizens including the legality owning slaves. The fact they slave-holding states decided to secede from the Union in response to a potential threat to one of the sovereign rights of the states at the time would validate the concept of the war being tied to a states rights issue.
At the core of the conflict, the issue of slavery was present to be sure, but the war itself was not fought "over slavery"; slavery was merely the catalyst which sparked the fuel.
And as to the original post, I have to admit I am in the "I really don't miss Reagan" camp ... I would say I am in the "I don't miss any of them" camp. Certainly, Reagan had a good amount of charisma (it definitely was not his dump stat) and has some classic sound bites (a solid Perform (Oratory) skill to be sure), but that in and of itself does not make for a great and positive leader. I'm also not sure I would classify him as what I would view as fulfilling the concept of what it means to be "presidential". Certainly, none of the presidents during my lifetime would fill that role at this point.
|
And what does any of this have to do with the OP? Nutin'. Just my 2cp.Actually everything. If you stick to the soundbite the impression Reagan gives off is great. If you start to look at what he did, without those sound bits he looks stupid. If you put them together and look at the whole he comes off as what he was, a president.
Actually the whole gorram debate about the Civil War has NOTHING to do with Reagan. And Reagan was a pretty good President all in all. He made errors yes, but at least he had the courage to admit his mistakes. He knew that a presidents job was to protect the people from outside influences and eachother, not themselves. Sorry if this comes off snarky but the whole being talked down to tends to get me riled up.
Just in case anyone wonders:No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
Because all state official swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, and......This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Then so were our Founding Forefathers. So I guess the United States as a whole is an illegal, outlaw state.
Nope. Because the UK recognized the USA after we won our independence. The CSA wasn't recognized by anyone after the USA fought back their insurrection.
My point was the North entered the war to preserve the union, not end slavery. The south seceded mainly because of slavery, but the war was fought for an entirely different reason. No one died of enemy fire at Sumter, so it doesn't really count.
If seceding was unconstitutional, how did West Virgina become a state? Shouldn't Virgina still hold claim to it since Virgina was never NOT out of the Union? Is it OK to secede from a State but not a Union?
BTW, the civil war was inevitable as was the end to slavery. If the Federal government really cared about the slaves they would have been treated as equals from the time they were freed, not the 1960's.
Lastly, I miss Reagan too. And Bonzo...
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
So when the North attacked the South, with out provocation, their only goal was to free the slaves. Had the South just ended slavery at the outset of the conflict, the North would have removed it's troops from the South and we would have lived happily ever after as two countries.
Psst. The south attacked first. Read a book :P
And up there with Pearl Harbor for misreading both the chances of winning a war and the consequences of starting it...
Actually the whole gorram debate about the Civil War has NOTHING to do with Reagan. And Reagan was a pretty good President all in all. He made errors yes, but at least he had the courage to admit his mistakes. He knew that a presidents job was to protect the people from outside influences and eachother, not themselves. Sorry if this comes off snarky but the whole being talked down to tends to get me riled up.And what does any of this have to do with the OP? Nutin'. Just my 2cp.Actually everything. If you stick to the soundbite the impression Reagan gives off is great. If you start to look at what he did, without those sound bits he looks stupid. If you put them together and look at the whole he comes off as what he was, a president.
I'm not talking down, I'm just pointing out that at that point there was some relevance to the conversation at hand. For the record I don't disagree with his overall philosophy on the points you bring up... that doesn't mean I agree with everything he did though either.
All in all, like I said he was a president. He wasn't a man holding office, he did his job to the best of his ability and that is all we can ask of anyone.
Nope. Because the UK recognized the USA after we won our independence. The CSA wasn't recognized by anyone after the USA fought back their insurrection.
This doesn't even make sense. Of course the US was recognized AFTER the war. And if the CSA had won they would have been recognized as well (most of Europe was rooting for the CSA anyway).
But it just illustrates hypocrisy when Washington is praised and Davis vilified in the same breath when they were both doing the exact same thing (though Davis had a far better case than Washington ever did).
So when the North attacked the South, with out provocation, their only goal was to free the slaves. Had the South just ended slavery at the outset of the conflict, the North would have removed it's troops from the South and we would have lived happily ever after as two countries.Psst. The south attacked first. Read a book :P
And up there with Pearl Harbor for misreading both the chances of winning a war and the consequences of starting it...
More like the Cuban Missile Crises (the Union playing the part of the Soviets/Cubans). There was no "surprise attack" and Like I've already pointed out the Confederates tries diplomacy but Lincoln rebuked them. So maybe its you who should be doing a little more reading.
Psst. The south attacked first. Read a book :P
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
More like the Cuban Missile Crises (the Union playing the part of the Soviets/Cubans). There was no "surprise attack" and Like I've already pointed out the Confederates tries diplomacy but Lincoln rebuked them. So maybe its you who should be doing a little more reading.
Generally speaking, mature adults refer to "leave or we attack" as an ultimatum rather than diplomacy. And it's pretty common to ignore ultimatums, nor is ignoring them generally considered casus belle.
Ownership of forts built with federal monies was certainly *not* such an open and shut issue that the South claiming all forts should have been considered automatic.
Anyhow, my comparison with Pearl Harbor was about the foolishness of the aggression, nothing more.
|
|
I liked Bush Sr.
Bush Sr. was an uncommonly smart and practical president. The man who did what he had to do and saved the economy from 'Reaganomics' by raising taxes to pay for Reagan's massive defense expenditures.
And for saving the country from a looming depression, he was voted out of office by outraged Friedmanites and Norquistians for going back on his 'no new taxes' campaign rhetoric. Small selfish people threw him to the wolves for acting like a grown-up.
I imagine that Bush Sr. is the last president we'll see who has the increasingly-nonsensical nation that one should pay for what one buys, and not try to short-sightedly 'pass the buck' and shift debt to the next president.
On the other hand, his involvement in Iran-Contra was a stain. The terrorists of the world learned the valuable lesson that America *will* capitulate to terror by giving arms for hostages, for short-term political gain.
I imagine that Bush Sr. is the last president we'll see who has the increasingly-nonsensical nation that one should pay for what one buys, and not try to short-sightedly 'pass the buck' and shift debt to the next president.
Exactamundo. It doesn't directly affect me, if gay people get married, or if unwed mothers get abortions, or whatever. I do care if the entire U.S. economy is a sham, and our nation is sold to China for back debt.
More like the Cuban Missile Crises (the Union playing the part of the Soviets/Cubans). There was no "surprise attack" and Like I've already pointed out the Confederates tries diplomacy but Lincoln rebuked them. So maybe its you who should be doing a little more reading.Generally speaking, mature adults refer to "leave or we attack" as an ultimatum rather than diplomacy. And it's pretty common to ignore ultimatums, nor is ignoring them generally considered casus belle.
Ownership of forts built with federal monies was certainly *not* such an open and shut issue that the South claiming all forts should have been considered automatic.
Anyhow, my comparison with Pearl Harbor was about the foolishness of the aggression, nothing more.
You obviously don't get it: the Confederacy sent diplomats and Lincoln refused to deal with them. So what was the South supposed to do? Have a well supplied federal fort hanging over their heads? Be real. And your logic could apply to the Cuban Missile Crisis--after all Cuba is a sovereign nation that was dealing with another sovereign nation, but to have allowed a threat of that magnitude to go unopposed would have been the height of stupidity--thus US intervention. As a matter of fact most of US foreign policy is geared around 'pre-emptive strikes'. So why condemn the Confederates for something the Union would have done themselves (or anyone for that matter)?
and here I was thinking your not getting it since this thread is about Reagan and not the Civil war. Perhaps if that is truely what you wish to discuss you should make another thread instead of just jacking this one and trolling through it.
Who are are you talking to CJ? There are several people who are discussing the Civil War.
A thread that stays on topic? That would be a sight to see! Fugetaboutit!
|
|
and here I was thinking your not getting it since this thread is about Reagan and not the Civil war. Perhaps if that is truely what you wish to discuss you should make another thread instead of just jacking this one and trolling through it.Who are are you talking to CJ? There are several people who are discussing the Civil War.
'Tis the nature of a message board. A discussion starts with Reagan, moves to comparisons with Lincoln, moves to civil war debate, moves back and forth between all active topics.
I still don't miss Reagan (or any previous president), btw. ;)
I'm still trying to figure out whether he was a better actor or a president or governor.
Yes that did come off as a bit of *censored* of me. I have seen soemthreads stay on topic or other threads breaking off of the initial one because of a change of subject.
<star wars> Stay on target </star wars>
So, when is the gipper going to get his own image imprinted on currency?
These of course are my opinions not the truth of the matter.
When judging presidents it always comes down to personal opinions and usually what side of the isle that person is. Conservatives as a whole love Reagan and liberals don't. The reverse is true when Clinton is judged.
So much for Susan B. Anthony's grip on the dollar.
|
I liked Bush Sr.Bush Sr. was an uncommonly smart and practical president. The man who did what he had to do and saved the economy from 'Reaganomics' by raising taxes to pay for Reagan's massive defense expenditures.
And for saving the country from a looming depression, he was voted out of office by outraged Friedmanites and Norquistians for going back on his 'no new taxes' campaign rhetoric. Small selfish people threw him to the wolves for acting like a grown-up.
I imagine that Bush Sr. is the last president we'll see who has the increasingly-nonsensical nation that one should pay for what one buys, and not try to short-sightedly 'pass the buck' and shift debt to the next president.
On the other hand, his involvement in Iran-Contra was a stain. The terrorists of the world learned the valuable lesson that America *will* capitulate to terror by giving arms for hostages, for short-term political gain.
Ross Perot. The only reason Bush 41 didn't get a second term. Very few of the people who voted for Perot would have given Clinton the time of day. Remember, Clinton only took 43% of the vote in '92, Bush 41 37% and Perot had 17%.
|
|
These of course are my opinions not the truth of the matter.
When judging presidents it always comes down to personal opinions and usually what side of the isle that person is. Conservatives as a whole love Reagan and liberals don't. The reverse is true when Clinton is judged.
Actually, I had no problem with Clinton, at least not after '94. When the Republicans took over the House, then the Senate, Clinton did a masterful job of co-opting their message and steering the nation center-right. Clinton is a great politician, even if he wasn't a great president (but he was pretty good). He's my second favorite in my lifetime after Reagan.
Too bad the current D!*&$$$-in-Chief won't do the same. Hope he enjoys his one term, and lame duck status after the '10 mid-term elections...
These of course are my opinions not the truth of the matter.
When judging presidents it always comes down to personal opinions and usually what side of the isle that person is. Conservatives as a whole love Reagan and liberals don't. The reverse is true when Clinton is judged.
Actually, I had no problem with Clinton, at least not after '94. When the Republicans took over the House, then the Senate, Clinton did a masterful job of co-opting their message and steering the nation center-right. Clinton is a great politician, even if he wasn't a great president (but he was pretty good). He's my second favorite in my lifetime after Reagan.
Too bad the current d@~#@#%-in-Chief won't do the same. Hope he enjoys his one term, and lame duck status after the '10 mid-term elections...
Yah, I've got some family down in Maryland, and most of them say pretty well the same thing: Reagan and Clinton OK (swaying somewhat one way or the other). The rest: garbage.
What? This isn't the heraled messiah of which they spoke?
Did everyone miss the last 20 years? Reagan was a nightmare!
Just off the top of my head:
TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS! Are you f'ing kidding me?
Huge deficit spending.
Savings and Loan scandals.
"Ketchup is a vegetable."
Support for South Africa, Noriega, and many of the other folks who would become the Taliban and Al Quida. Not to mention half the other scumbag regimes of the world.
Thought that people with AIDS should die.
Trading arms for hostages with Iran(note: a french hostage was worth more then an American.)
And funneling the money to South American "freedom fighter" death squads.
Atrocious environmental/oil record.
Reagan belongs in prison then hell for all the wrongs he has done.
Now don't get me wrong, the idea of having The Marlboro Man/Colombo as president sounds good, but those 8 years left us so screwed we haven't even recovered yet. I can see missing a lot of people, but do we really need to bring back any of the Presidents? Hell, I think they are on the list of people who really made the world a much worse place then it could have been if we stuck with our highest beliefs, and not sound-bites and fear.
Psst. The south attacked first. Read a book :P
Psst. Col. Anderson seized Fort Sumter after spiking the cannons at Fort Moultrie. It was seen as an aggressive act and a breach of faith perpetrated by the Union forces. So if the South seizing a fort is an act of war, why isn't it true for the North? How's that for book learnin? :-)
Besides, I was actually joking about the "unprovoked" invasion of the South. It was a slow march to the war for the North and South, and really had nothing to do with ending slavery for the North, just a happy by-product.
Again, just pointing out Lincoln gets credit for fighting a war to end slavery, when that really wasn't the case. The South fought to keep slavery and the way of life they knew, but the North only really fought to preserve the union and keep the South's resources as there own.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
So, when is the gipper going to get his own image imprinted on currency?
2016, when it's his turn on the dollar coins.
--+--+--
One thing that was notable about Reagan, and notably different than Carter, was the way he made decisions. Even his advisors at the time commented on it. Reagan brought a philosophical framework to the table, and he dismissed out-of-hand any alternatives that weren't in accord with that philosophy. Carter, on the other hand, made decisions based on the facts of the case before him, and tried to choose the best course of action in each particular instance.
This was one of the weaknesses of Carter's presidency, and one of the reasons he had such a difficult time with the Soviets. By being so flexible about what options he would consider, and so fluid in his choices, he was very difficult for his opponents to predict. He wasn't middle-of-the-road; Carter was all-over-the-road. And that's not helpful when you're playing chicken with a superpower with a nuclear arsenal.
Reagan may have rejected a score of the best ideas. He may have been held captive to certain flights of fancy and unwilling to change course --staggering Reaganomic budget deficits and the ridiculous Star Wars missile defense program are certainly two examples-- but his policies were consistent and predictable, which worked to our favor in international relations.
What? This isn't the heraled messiah of which they spoke?
No, just the next best thing.
|
|
Did everyone miss the last 20 years? Reagan was a nightmare!
Just off the top of my head:
TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS! Are you f'ing kidding me?
Huge deficit spending.
Savings and Loan scandals.
"Ketchup is a vegetable."
Support for South Africa, Noriega, and many of the other folks who would become the Taliban and Al Quida. Not to mention half the other scumbag regimes of the world.
Thought that people with AIDS should die.
Trading arms for hostages with Iran(note: a french hostage was worth more then an American.)
And funneling the money to South American "freedom fighter" death squads.
Atrocious environmental/oil record.Reagan belongs in prison then hell for all the wrongs he has done.
Now don't get me wrong, the idea of having The Marlboro Man/Colombo as president sounds good, but those 8 years left us so screwed we haven't even recovered yet. I can see missing a lot of people, but do we really need to bring back any of the Presidents? Hell, I think they are on the list of people who really made the world a much worse place then it could have been if we stuck with our highest beliefs, and not sound-bites and fear.
...and the Eastern Europeans say? Try again.
And, for the record, um, ALL economics are "trickle down". Unless you work for the government, a rich dude, or someone that could convince a rich dude or a bank to fund them, created your job.
And if you do work for the government, someone stole money from a productive member of society to cover your paycheck.
What? This isn't the heraled messiah of which they spoke?No, just the next best thing.
Funny that; I always imagined you more like the Frisch's Big Boy mascot. The hairdoo, you realize...
<D.R.I.> Reaganomics's killing me </D.R.I.>
And funneling the money to South American "freedom fighter" death squads.
Gotta admit. That was epic shameful.
Huge deficit spending.
Dang Fergie, you must REALLY hate Obama!