Re: L3 Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view.
As far as I know, Gautam's and Dan's discussions of the US Civil War are correct: * The Fugitive Slave Act was an imposition on states' rights. It meant a change from the previous, more or less `live and let live' tolerance policy to a Federally imposed `you will help us kidnap your residents' policy. * Poor Southern whites -- most of the Confederacy's soldiers -- were fighting to maintain their respect, which meant fighting to maintain slavery. The South was more a shame/honor society than the North, which as more an actions/guilt society. Southerners maintained their social position by comparing themselves to other people, such as slaves, and felt a loss of honor and shame when the people previously below them socially gained honor. Northerners, on the other hand, felt guilty when they did not succeed. Success might only mean becoming an independent farmer, but that was often enough. As Robert Seeberger pointed out, these statements are just generalities. Not all Southerners fitted them, just as not all Northerners fitted theirs. But as a first approximation, as far as I know, they are correct. It goes without saying that to avoid being misled it is necessary to go further. Gautam Mukunda wrote How could the South have won? How about no major offensive operations, force the North into a grinding war of attrition and denying it any major victories while either getting European intervention (which almost happened) or a Democratic victory in 1864 (which _also_ almost happened, The South should have followed George Washington. In the colonies' war for independence from Great Britain, he adopted a strategy to `wait them out' and to gain European allies. Washington's strategy succeeded. As far as I can see, the guerilla war against the US in Iraq is based on the same strategy. Gautam Mukunda wrote Eli Whitney's invention of the cotton gin made slavery profitable once again In a sense, you could say that the American Civil War was a product of technological change ... This is definitely true. Without the cotton gin, slavery would have vanished. I have often wished that automated flax weaving had been developed earlier. Then slavery would not have been profitable. Unfortunately for linen, I have read that automated linen weaving requires metal looms, which were first developed in the 1820s, rather than wood looms, which were developed a half century earlier. Is this true? The cotton gin became well known 1790s, shortly after the US Constitution was negotiated. It enabled factories that used existing weaving technology to produce inexpensive cotton goods. Also, I have heard it said that cotton clothing is more comfortable than linen clothing, presuming the proper fineness for both. But the use of `linens' for underwear contradicts this claim. Does someone know? Is this the kind of knowledge that crafts people and members of the SCA maintain? Does any one know off hand the prices, by decade, for equivalent cotton and linen clothes through out the 19th century? My vague memory is that cotton clothes became and stayed cheaper than linen clothes, which was the reverse of previous centuries. As for the point that the Northern government did too little to help the former slaves after the Civil War: I think that is true. The famous phrase is that the Northern government was going to give former slaves `40 acres and a mule'. On the one hand, it may have been impossible for the North to provide mules, on account there not being enough of them (I don't know). Does any one know how many mules there were and what the demand might have been, both for mules and for whatever else former slave settlers would have needed? On the other hand, however, the Union government could have given each work group or family 120 acres round about the 100th line of longitude (i.e., at the approximate western end of the range in which non-irrigated agriculture is possible using 1860s technology). I fear that white northern farmers prevented this action, because they feared that former slaves would out compete them. Side query: I remember that Aristotle wrote that he favored slavery, until the shuttle could weave by itself'. However, I have not been able to find the reference, although I have searched through a good number of (English-language) books. Does anyone know the reference? (As for the technological change question: Aristotle never thought of the cotton gin. I suspect he was thinking of wool and flax. Also, quite possibly, he did not ever expect automated textile machinery; that machinery was not invented for two millenia after Aristotle's death.) -- Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: L3 Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view.
Gautam Mukunda asks ... was Southern defeat inevitable? I would actually say, in retrospect, that it's actually fairly improbable. This is a nice question. The early 1860s were the first period in which the North had the economic power to fund a civil war and win. But it just barely had that ability. Yes, it was important, as Gautam points out, that Lincoln was a poor farmer's son. So was Grant. The two most important figures in the Union war effort were up from poverty types. The North benefited from the greater supply of talent its action/guilt society provided than the South for which Gautam cannot ..think of a single high officer ... who wasn't a part of the planter aristocracy. However, it was equally important that the North be able to afford the war. Before 1860, the South was the richer part of the US. After 1860, the North. This is because Northern manufacturing grew so much. Nearly every successfully developing country goes through a fast growth stage that lasts a generation or two. China is the current example. Japan was earlier. The US was even earlier. Its fast manufacturing growth stage took place in the middle 19th century, and primarily in the North. By 1860, the US had been going through its `double manufacturing output every 7 years' period for 15 or 20 years. (Maybe longer, but if I remember correctly, the period of 10% per year manufacturing growth started in 1840 - 1845; does someone know the figures better?) (The only successful country that did not go through a fast growth stage was Britain, the first country to develop economically in the modern manner. Generation by generation, Great Britain maintained a 1.7% or 1.8% per year growth rate from the latter third of the eighteenth century to the latter third of the twentieth century, except for a generation lost on account of WWI. I don't know Britain's growth rate since I looked, which would have been in the late 1960s or 70s. Does anyone know of long run British figures brought up to date and more likely to be accurate? Is my thesis reasonable? As for an explanation: Britain did not grow faster because people first had to invent the technologies; and then investors had to discover which were profitable.) Back to the US: suppose Lincoln had not been elected President in 1860 and suppose there had been no civil war and no succession. Would the North have become so much more successful economically in another 15 or 20 years and the South so weak, that slavery became irrelevant? This would be a argument that Lincoln should never have become President. Or were the early 1860s the last time the Southern leadership could see themselves as having a chance? Were they much like the leaders of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1914, who, as far as I know, decided `better to fight now, which a chance of victory, that face sure defeat in the future' (on account both their ally Germany and their enemy Russia were advancing ahead of them)? If the latter, not only would such thinking explain why the South decided to face Lincoln in war, but tell us that Lincoln was relevant. What does anyone know? -- Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: L3 Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view.
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 11:10:04AM -0500, Robert J. Chassell wrote: Does anyone know of long run British figures brought up to date and more likely to be accurate? Is my thesis reasonable? As for an explanation: Britain did not grow faster because people first had to invent the technologies; and then investors had to discover which were profitable.) Interesting discussion and some graphs with answers to your question: http://www.efficientfrontier.com/ef/902/gmm.htm *** Angus Maddison, link below, gives the average annual compound real GDP growth rate for the U.K. as: 1500-1820 0.8% 1820-1870 2.05% 1870-1913 1.90% 1913-1950 1.19% 1950-1973 2.93% 1973-1998 2.00% http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/articles_of_the_month/maddison-millennial.html (see link to full article at bottom; if you have trouble viewing it, do save link as... and save it as a PDF file) *** For world stock and bond data for the 20th century, see _Triumph of the Optimists_, by Dimson, Marsh, and Staunton. For example, the real return on equities in the UK was: 1900 1.8% 10 0.2 20 3.1 30 3.0 40 3.0 50 4.7 60 5.0 70 4.2 80 5.4 90 5.8 *** And there is a great reference for these sorts of questions, and many others, coming out very soon: _The Birth of Plenty_ by William J. Bernstein, due out in April. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: L3 Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view.
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For example, my understanding is that in the early days of the First World War, American sympathies were largely with the Germans. Likewise, the Irish also generally sympathized with the Germans in the World Wars in large part because they hated the British. I know of the first part. Even with WWII many americans were more favorable to the Germans, given that Britton was a big giant empire at the time. (They did not, so I am told by friends who were alive then, know of the impending genocide) But I have never heard much on Irland in the world wars. Of course you are refering to individual's opionions and not governemnt policy, but still, could you elaborate? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re:L3 Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view.
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 3:13 PM Subject: Re: Bitter Melons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view. --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 7:41 PM Subject: Bitter Melons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view. other posts on this topic to boot. 1) Your doing it again, and this time, you are smothering a perfectly reasonable discussion on this human reaction which needs a name, with a frivilous and debatable discussion on WWII. (yet again) Nah, one post cannot smother a reasonable discussion. The fact of the matter is that you have not been successful in persuading people to accept some of your main premises. Thus, there is no discussion on how and why those premises are true. Indeed, your postulates require the dismissal of a large body of information; which makes them empirically suspect. I was not refering to the anti-semetic macro-thread, but rather the point that most people seem to jump to knee-jerk asumptions ... (what this thread was originaly about.) But, your arguments really didn't support that. Take states rights, for example. Historically, it originated with the Southern apologist school of history arguing that the Civil war was fought over states rights. There are a myriad of reasons why this is a smokescreen. Recently it was point out, I think by Gautam but I won't swear by it, that the South supported the most overwhelming pre-war abridgement of states rights by the federal government: the Fugitive Slave Act. During the argument over segregation, the segregationists relied heavily on States rights. One of the main apologists for segregation later admitted it was not a question of states right.Given this, it is very reasonable to be suspicious when states rights is brought up in American political discussions. Thus, this doesn't qualify as a knee jerk reaction. I disagree. you are making no argument other than it fits my pre- concieved notions. Anyone seriously arguing for statest rights today could not possibly intend to return to segrigation. Either that or they are 80 years old and living in the past. So even your argument is't very appealing. Never mind your argument though, becouse it isn't really an argument, it is simply an example. Here is an example of a possible conversation: SR: I think states should have more atonomy. X: In what way? How do you mean? SR: States should have the right to decide if they want to recognize game marriage, outlaw abortion, etc. That way the people who want things one way can live in a state that matches their lifestyle. X: What about racial segrigation? SR: Isn't that unconstitutional X: Maybe but I think that states rights might lead to one state brinign the idea back. Etc: Personaly reasonable conversation. Now for the counter example: SR: I think states should have more atonomy. Y: That's rediculous, segrigation will never come back. SR: Of course not, I am only saying that States should have the right to decide if they want to recognize game marriage, outlaw abortion, etc. That way the people who want things one way can live in a state that matches their lifestyle. Y: Your idea of states rights is hurtfull to African Americans, you sould read some history. SR: I know that States Rights was used as an attempt at racial segrigation at one time, but I think that racial segrigation is unconstitutional, I am not a racist and I am not for racial segrigation. I simply think that it would be good for stats to be more atonomous. Y: I think your an idiot and a bigot. I am saying that Y happens far too often. So much so that, some very good ideas (maybe not SR) might be compleatly overlooked or taken with so much taboo that they are not attempted or even discussed. I believe that not discussing such topics openly is a bad thing. Since we've been covering Israel extensively, I'll only lightly touch of this. First, let me point out that everyone that I know of who has defended Israel on the list has also registered disagreement/disapproval of the policies of the government of Israel from time to time. This should indicate that not all criticism of Israel is considered anti- Semetic. Second, if you look at the unreasonable public criticism of Israel, you will see that there is an extremely high correlation with the expression of that criticism and other typical anti-Semetic expressions. Look at the folks who voted to call Zionism as a form of racism (ignoring much more xenophobic places like Japan, or France or Germany) and
Re: L3 Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view.
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Julia wrote: Dan Minette wrote: Its true that you can find some historian on any side of an issue. That doesn't mean that there is not a good way to determine what is likely, unlikely, and very very unlikely. For example, its quite unlikely that the Civil War was fought over states rights. The Civil War was *waged* over slavery. Some of those doing the fighting were fighting for states' rights, so arguably it was *fought* over that. A lot of those in the South put their state above the nation. Lee wouldn't fight for the Union because his Virginia was part of the Confederacy. And this putting the state before the nation was probably one of the major factors that lost the war for the South. But that's personal loyalty, not really a stand in favor of states' rights, don't you think? So you think that the average foot soldire in the civil war , fighting for the confederacy thought states rights was just an excuse for slavery? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: L3 Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view.
From: Julia Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If you'd asked one of them if the subject of the war was slavery or states rights, they'd have said states rights. Of course, the particular states right they were so concerned about losing was slavery. - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: L3 Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view.
From: Jan Coffey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Actualy it was. It was fought over the states rights to be a differnt country. Seriously though, do you think that the average foot soldiure in the confederacy did not believe in the retoric of the time? No, it was fought over the states rights to hold slaves. Nothing else. The slavery issue colored everything during that time and for the 30 years leading up to the war. - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: L3 Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view.
Horn, John wrote: From: Julia Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If you'd asked one of them if the subject of the war was slavery or states rights, they'd have said states rights. Of course, the particular states right they were so concerned about losing was slavery. Which was the primary concern of the politicians and the people in power, but *not* of most of the infantry. The leaders meant X, said Y, the rank-and-file believed Y. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: L3 Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view.
--- Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Which was the primary concern of the politicians and the people in power, but *not* of most of the infantry. The leaders meant X, said Y, the rank-and-file believed Y. Julia You know you're both stepping into a bit of a historical minefield here, right? You could probably ask 50 Civil War historians and get 50 different answers on whether the rank-and-file was fighting for slavery. My own answer, btw, would be, in part, but not as the largest part and that doesn't necessarily mean that they were fighting for slavery, per se, so much as their own social status (in the sharply hierarchical South) as not the bottom of the totem pole. But I'm confident enough in my own ignorance to say that is a very uncertain opinion. It is perhaps the greatest irony (among many) of the Civil War that perhaps the single most important reason for the South's defeat - the genius of Abraham Lincoln - could _only_ be utilized in the meritocratic North, where a dirt-poor farm boy had the chance to rise to the Presidency, something that would have been inconceivable in Southern society. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: L3 Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view.
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Horn, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Jan Coffey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Actualy it was. It was fought over the states rights to be a differnt country. Seriously though, do you think that the average foot soldiure in the confederacy did not believe in the retoric of the time? No, it was fought over the states rights to hold slaves. Nothing else. The slavery issue colored everything during that time and for the 30 years leading up to the war. Yes of course, history is painted in black and white. That's why all those pictures you see from the time are not in collor. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: L3 Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view.
It is perhaps the greatest irony (among many) of the Civil War that perhaps the single most important reason for the South's defeat - the genius of Abraham Lincoln - could _only_ be utilized in the meritocratic North, where a dirt-poor farm boy had the chance to rise to the Presidency, something that would have been inconceivable in Southern society. = Gautam Mukunda I don't want to bring back the discussions of the American generals; just a simple question. I'm assuming you are not saying Lincoln was a genius war president. I've only read Gods and Generals, otherwise I know little about the war. It seemed that the north (generals) made a lot of mistakes before finally winning, not pressing advantages or getting into traps. This is all hindsight and some of it is still disputed. OTOH It seemed Davis let his generals go; was smart enough to know that he didn't know enough. From the beginning the South was out manned and under equipped? The question is, was the south's loss inevitable? I can't imaging that the southern society was as rigidly stratified. There had to be poor Southers that rose in society. David Crockett didn't learn to read or write until he was 18. Daniel Boone moved to the south when he was 15 from PA and I doubt it was at the behest of a rich landowner. Lincoln himself was born in Kentucky, moving when they were eight. Maybe it's the military that made these people great(er). Kevin T. - VRWC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: L3 Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view.
--- Kevin Tarr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't want to bring back the discussions of the American generals; just a simple question. I'm assuming you are not saying Lincoln was a genius war president. I've only read Gods and Generals, otherwise I know little about the war. It seemed that the north (generals) made a lot of mistakes before finally winning, not pressing advantages or getting into traps. This is all hindsight and some of it is still disputed. OTOH It seemed Davis let his generals go; was smart enough to know that he didn't know enough. From the beginning the South was out manned and under equipped? The question is, was the south's loss inevitable? I can't imaging that the southern society was as rigidly stratified. There had to be poor Southers that rose in society. David Crockett didn't learn to read or write until he was 18. Daniel Boone moved to the south when he was 15 from PA and I doubt it was at the behest of a rich landowner. Lincoln himself was born in Kentucky, moving when they were eight. Kevin T. - VRWC As to the stratification of Southern society - just look at the leadership in the Civil War. Lincoln was a poor farmer's son. So was Grant. The two most important figures in the Union war effort were up from poverty types. By contrast, I can't think of a single high officer in the South who wasn't a part of the planter aristocracy. First, I _am_ saying that Lincoln was a genius war President. In fact, I'm saying that if anyone else in the United States had been President instead of Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War, the North would have lost. Any other person. If you want proof of divine favor for the United States, you can't do better than to ask what are the odds that a poor farmboy with less than six months of formal education whose only previous federal elective office was _one term_ in the House would turn out to be the greatest strategic thinker in American history and (in my opinion) the greatest of all Americans. This is not exactly a likely outcome. Davis did let his generals go. This was not smart. It was, in fact, very dumb. The job of generals, in a sense, is to win battles, not wars. Clausewitz said, right, that war is the continuation of politics by other means. Wars are fought in order to obtain political ends. That's what Lincoln understood. So your tactics, operations, everything, must be subservient to your strategy, and your strategy is dictated by _politics_. How could the South have won? How about no major offensive operations, force the North into a grinding war of attrition and denying it any major victories while either getting European intervention (which almost happened) or a Democratic victory in 1864 (which _also_ almost happened, and would have had Farragut not taken Mobile Bay and Sherman not taken Atlanta). Lee, by taking the offensive repeatedly, both tactically and operationally, drained Southern manpower and gave the North the opportunity to win the war. By focusing Southern attention on the Northern Virginia theatre - instead of the West, where Lincoln (the first President born west of the Appalachians) understood it would actually be decided, Lee's personal prestige probably did a great deal of harm to the war effort. So, was Southern defeat inevitable? I would actually say, in retrospect, that it's actually fairly improbable. Why didn't Britain intervene? Mainly the extraordinary diplomatic adroitness of the Lincoln Administration. Why did the Republicans survive the 1862 midterm elections? Lincoln. Why did they win the 1864 election? Lincoln again. Why did they (finally) find the generals (Grant and Sherman) who understood the war (not just tactics, but the war itself) and what it took to win it? Lincoln. And what are the odds of that? = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re:L3 Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view.
- Original Message - From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 5:23 PM Subject: Re:L3 Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view. --- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But, your arguments really didn't support that. Take states rights, for example. Historically, it originated with the Southern apologist school of history arguing that the Civil war was fought over states rights. There are a myriad of reasons why this is a smokescreen. Recently it was point out, I think by Gautam but I won't swear by it, that the South supported the most overwhelming pre-war abridgement of states rights by the federal government: the Fugitive Slave Act. During the argument over segregation, the segregationists relied heavily on States rights. One of the main apologists for segregation later admitted it was not a question of states right.Given this, it is very reasonable to be suspicious when states rights is brought up in American political discussions. Thus, this doesn't qualify as a knee jerk reaction. Hi Dan. I did make the point about the Fugitive Slave Act. To be totally fair to the state's rights argument, however, the concept of state's rights is central to the American constitional structure and probably one of the most important elements in the success of the American experiment. I think it's an entirely legitimate argument, and started out that way in real tensions based on legitimate principles between the Democratic-Republicans (in favor of state's rights, as a first approximation) and the Federalists (in favor of a strong federal government). The problem with the state's rights argument isn't that it is invalid on its face, or that everyone making that argument was doing it for convenience sake - it's that, starting in the early 1800s, it was co-opted by pro-slavery forces, which would eventually become the dominant voice using the state's rights argument. But one of the strongest arguments used against the Fugitive Slave Act was, of course...state's rights. But, it didn't hold any sway with the folks who used States Rights to argue for slavery. Your comments on early earnest disagreements on the relative strength of the federal government is consistent with my understanding of the history of that time. Wanting to favor state power more than national power isn't inherently racist, it was indeed tainted by over 100 years of being used in the service of racism. That's fair enough. So while I think it was fair to look with suspicion at people who made the claim that they were important in the 1950s, or even the 1970s, I don't think it would be fair to do so today. Had the claim of state's rights _always_ been about race, it would be, but it didn't start out that way - it was perverted by people who were using a legitimate argument for illegitimate purposes. But, what I've noticed is that folks who argue one way or the other now don't speak of States Rights. After those words being used as code words for so many years, folks who suggest that the states are the best place to handle X don't call upon states rights as their reason. They might make an argument that would classified as an honest states rights argument, but stay away from words that have such a strong connotation after being hijacked for so many years. In addition, I don't see it as an argument of inherent principal in many/most cases; but as a pragmatic argument. The same people who argue things should be handled at the state level for X tend to support uniform federal standards on Y. This can best be seen by liberals starting to endorse states rights for things like medical marijuana and pollution regulations. The conservatives, who usually have argued for less federal government control, have taken the other side. I'm not saying that its all hypocrisy, BTW. Pragmatism is not the same as hypocrisy. It may be best that practical questions guide how the nation solves the issue of doing things more at a national or local level. Dan M. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re:L3 Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view.
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In addition, I don't see it as an argument of inherent principal in many/most cases; but as a pragmatic argument. The same people who argue things should be handled at the state level for X tend to support uniform federal standards on Y. This can best be seen by liberals starting to endorse states rights for things like medical marijuana and pollution regulations. The conservatives, who usually have argued for less federal government control, have taken the other side. Dan M. I would actually point out that _none_ of this necessarily has to be hypocrisy. The concept of state's rights to me is not that _all things_ are best determined at the state level, but that some things are. Since the overwhelming trend since the Second World War has been the willy-nilly federalization of every conceivable issue, state's rights proponents have often been seen as favoring states over the federal government in all things and, when they fail to do so, as people who are acting hypocritically. That's not necessarily fair, however. The best book I've read on this topic (in part) is _America's Constitutional Soul_, a collection of essays by Harvey Mansfield. Unfortunately it's written with Mansfield's usual elegant but opaque style, so I found that I had to read every paragraph at least three times before I began to understand it... = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: L3 Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view.
From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] How could the South have won? How about no major offensive operations, force the North into a grinding war of attrition and denying it any major victories while either getting European intervention (which almost happened) or a Democratic victory in 1864 I had thought that most European sympathies lay with the North, given European distaste for slavery, and that the North did actually get some European aid? What nation(s) considered intervening on the South's side? Why would a Democrat victory have ensured Southern victory? Were the Democrats that pro-secession that they would have ended the war and let the Confederacy go? So, was Southern defeat inevitable? I would actually say, in retrospect, that it's actually fairly improbable. Why didn't Britain intervene? Mainly the extraordinary diplomatic adroitness of the Lincoln Administration. Why did the Republicans survive the 1862 midterm elections? Lincoln. Why did they win the 1864 election? Lincoln again. Why did they (finally) find the generals (Grant and Sherman) who understood the war (not just tactics, but the war itself) and what it took to win it? Lincoln. And what are the odds of that? Was the public that indifferent to keeping the Union together? Thinking about Dan's what-ifs, here's a different scenario: What if Lincoln *hadn't* been elected, but a *Democrat* had been? IIRC, it was Lincoln's election (and know anti-slavery stance) that brought the tensions to a head, rather than any explicit acts Lincoln did to provoke the secession. I guess also along those lines, would a different Republican with perhaps a less anti-slavery platform have triggered the war? In other words, was the Civil War inevitable? Certainly, even without Lincoln, slavery would have had to end in the US at some point - Would it have been possible for this country to eventually outlaw slavery, without the war? -bryon _ One-click access to Hotmail from any Web page download MSN Toolbar now! http://clk.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200413ave/direct/01/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: L3 Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view.
--- Bryon Daly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I had thought that most European sympathies lay with the North, given European distaste for slavery, and that the North did actually get some European aid? What nation(s) considered intervening on the South's side? The sympathies of European _publics_ were largely with the North, but the sympathies of European governments much less so. They were (dimly) aware of the fact that the United States was a steadily strengthening colossus with the potential to eventually overshadow them all - and they were ready and willing to do something about it. Britain and France both proposed intervening on the South's side, and both came very close to doing so. Britain and the US, in fact, almost went to war over the American capture of Mason and Slidell (two Confederate commissioners sent to Britain to try to gain recognition) from a British ship - Lincoln had the wisdom to back down in that confrontation, against the wishes of the American public and against the advice of Seward, his Secretary of State and the second most powerful man in the Republican Party. Earlier in the war Britain and France had proposed a ceasefire followed by arbitration, which would equally have certainly ended in Southern independence. It was the Lincoln Administration's skillful handling of popular sympathy for the North, combined with its flexibility and ability to use Russia to balance against Britain and France, that kept the European powers at bay. Why would a Democrat victory have ensured Southern victory? Were the Democrats that pro-secession that they would have ended the war and let the Confederacy go? Not necessarily pro-secession, but much less active in promoting the war and probably much more likely to accept a negotiated settlement. They were, across-the board, quite opposed to the abolition of slavery, which added to the matter. Was the public that indifferent to keeping the Union together? Not at all. But it is impossible for us, in the modern context, to imagine a war like the American Civil War. No Western power had fought a conflict that devastating since 1815, and the United States has never come close, before or since. Remember, the North lost thousands of men in a few _hours_ at Cold Harbor, and that was just one battle. After years of such slaughter - battle after battle after battle, with (for long periods) little sign of victory, and often repeated defeats, one after the other, I think that only a Lincoln could have held the course and convinced the American public to keep fighting. Thinking about Dan's what-ifs, here's a different scenario: What if Lincoln *hadn't* been elected, but a *Democrat* had been? IIRC, it was Lincoln's election (and know anti-slavery stance) that brought the tensions to a head, rather than any explicit acts Lincoln did to provoke the secession. I guess also along those lines, would a different Republican with perhaps a less anti-slavery platform have triggered the war? Any Republican would have triggered the war, definitely. Lincoln was (purposefully and with political calculation in mind - God knows what he actually believed) about as moderate on that issue as it was possible for a Republican to get. If a Democrat had been, would the Civil War have happened? Well, it wouldn't have happened in 1860. But in that case you have two issues: 1. As Lincoln himself said, that would have been the end of democracy in any meaningful sense. It would have been one region of the country holding the nation hostage, threatening violence if an election did not go its way. What sort of democracy is that? 2. _Eventually_ a Republican would have been elected, or an anti-slavery Democrat. The slavery issue would have been decided eventually, one way or the other. Which gets to your point below: In other words, was the Civil War inevitable? Certainly, even without Lincoln, slavery would have had to end in the US at some point - Would it have been possible for this country to eventually outlaw slavery, without the war? -bryon I think the answer to that question depends on _when_. Now, btw, we're getting very firmly into my opinion, as opposed to historical consensus. I think that as late as 1820 or so, yes, we could have resolved the issue without war. Around about then (I don't remember the exact date) there was a vote in the Virginia Legislature on the abolition of slavery that was actually pretty close. If Virginia had voted to abolish, then I think that the rest of the South would eventually have followed. But it didn't, and over time the South was overtaken by pro-slavery ideology, which is exactly what it sounds like - the belief not (as the Founders had it) that slavery was an evil that we were stuck with, but a positive good that had to be defended at all costs. By the time of the Civil War, even moderates like Alexander Stephens (the Confederate Vice President) were captured by that
Re: L3 Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view.
- Original Message - From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 2:11 PM Subject: Re: L3 Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view. --- Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Which was the primary concern of the politicians and the people in power, but *not* of most of the infantry. The leaders meant X, said Y, the rank-and-file believed Y. Julia You know you're both stepping into a bit of a historical minefield here, right? You could probably ask 50 Civil War historians and get 50 different answers on whether the rank-and-file was fighting for slavery. My own answer, btw, would be, in part, but not as the largest part and that doesn't necessarily mean that they were fighting for slavery, per se, so much as their own social status (in the sharply hierarchical South) as not the bottom of the totem pole. But I'm confident enough in my own ignorance to say that is a very uncertain opinion. I'm pretty sure that even common people realised that freeing the slaves meant a pretty severe economic depression in the south. So in some ways it was about money. It is perhaps the greatest irony (among many) of the Civil War that perhaps the single most important reason for the South's defeat - the genius of Abraham Lincoln - could _only_ be utilized in the meritocratic North, where a dirt-poor farm boy had the chance to rise to the Presidency, something that would have been inconceivable in Southern society. Sre! G But could a dirt poor workhouse boy ever become president? G xponent The Advantages Of A Frontier Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: L3 Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view.
Bryon Daly wrote: From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] How could the South have won? How about no major offensive operations, force the North into a grinding war of attrition and denying it any major victories while either getting European intervention (which almost happened) or a Democratic victory in 1864 I had thought that most European sympathies lay with the North, given European distaste for slavery, and that the North did actually get some European aid? What nation(s) considered intervening on the South's side? Gautam covered that. One thing I didn't see in his response -- the South did a lot of trade with Britain, so the Confederacy would have had economic ties with Britain. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: L3 Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view.
--- Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sre! G But could a dirt poor workhouse boy ever become president? The Advantages Of A Frontier Maru rob Thank you, Frederick Jackson Turner :-) In all seriousness...Bill Clinton? Ronald Reagan? Clinton grew up lower middle class at best, and Reagan's family was _poor_. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: L3 Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view.
- Original Message - From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 7:24 PM Subject: Re: L3 Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view. --- Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sre! G But could a dirt poor workhouse boy ever become president? The Advantages Of A Frontier Maru rob Thank you, Frederick Jackson Turner :-) In all seriousness...Bill Clinton? Ronald Reagan? Clinton grew up lower middle class at best, and Reagan's family was _poor_. Oh Crap!!! I thought you were talking 19th century. (hence the workhouse reference) xponent Been Dirt Poor Myself Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: L3 Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view.
--- Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One thing I didn't see in his response -- the South did a lot of trade with Britain, so the Confederacy would have had economic ties with Britain. Julia Good point, Julia. I should have mentioned that. In fact, the South really expected Britain to enter the war in order to get Southern cotton, which they thought the British economy needed to surivive. They vastly overestimated the British dependence on Southern cotton (the total failure of Southern strategic analysis is a topic I'd like to study some day). _But_. One reason the British were under less economic pressure to intervene than they might have been was record cotton crops in India and Egypt. Had the climate been less favorable, the economic pressure for Britain to intervene would have been much higher. Luck once again, I guess. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: L3 Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view.
--- Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh Crap!!! I thought you were talking 19th century. (hence the workhouse reference) xponent Been Dirt Poor Myself Maru rob Ahh...now I understand. Hmm, that's an interesting question. Who was the first _urban_ President from a poor family? I don't know - can't think of who it might be. Nixon is the first to spring to mind, but there surely must have been others before that. Anyone else on the list have an idea? = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
State's Rights and Hypocrisy Re: Re:L3 Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic,and a an Un- reasonable view.
At 03:57 PM 3/1/2004 -0800 Gautam Mukunda wrote: I would actually point out that _none_ of this necessarily has to be hypocrisy. The concept of state's rights to me is not that _all things_ are best determined at the state level, but that some things are. Since the overwhelming trend since the Second World War has been the willy-nilly federalization of every conceivable issue, state's rights proponents have often been seen as favoring states over the federal government in all things and, when they fail to do so, as people who are acting hypocritically. That's not necessarily fair, however. Thank you. I am not normally given to me-too posting, but the meme Gautam is responding to here drives me absolutely batty. For example, believing in smaller government doesn't mean supporting smaller government in all things that's anarchy, or at least libertarianism. Likewise, just because I support State's Rights doesn't mean that I support the right of each State to decide whether or not human life begins at conception or after the child speaks its first complete sentence. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Would the North Have Settled in the Civil War? Re: L3 Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view.
At 04:48 PM 3/1/2004 -0800 Gautam Mukunda wrote: Not at all. But it is impossible for us, in the modern context, to imagine a war like the American Civil War. No Western power had fought a conflict that devastating since 1815, and the United States has never come close, before or since. Remember, the North lost thousands of men in a few _hours_ at Cold Harbor, and that was just one battle. After years of such slaughter - battle after battle after battle, with (for long periods) little sign of victory, and often repeated defeats, one after the other, I think that only a Lincoln could have held the course and convinced the American public to keep fighting. Indeed, I believe that Antietam remains the most deadly day in US history, and that Shiloh remains the most deadly battle. Given how close this conflict was to home, and for how long it dragged on, it is remarkable that the North did not eventually choose to settle. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: L3 Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view.
At 07:17 PM 3/1/2004 -0500 Bryon Daly wrote: I had thought that most European sympathies lay with the North, given European distaste for slavery, and that the North did actually get some European aid? What nation(s) considered intervening on the South's side? You forget the role rivalries in this situation, and particularly the fact that the United States and United Kingdom are not far removed from having fought two wars with each other. For example, my understanding is that in the early days of the First World War, American sympathies were largely with the Germans. Likewise, the Irish also generally sympathized with the Germans in the World Wars in large part because they hated the British. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Would the North Have Settled in the Civil War? Re: L3 Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view.
--- John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Indeed, I believe that Antietam remains the most deadly day in US history, and that Shiloh remains the most deadly battle. Given how close this conflict was to home, and for how long it dragged on, it is remarkable that the North did not eventually choose to settle. JDG You know, you're the second person recently to say this. While Antietam was the deadliest day in American history, Shiloh actually isn't even in the top 5 in casualties in a single battle in the Civil War. Gettysburg was the largest. Shiloh was the worst at its time - unprecedentedly bad. It is perhaps a sign of how incredibly bloody the Civil War became that it would be surpassed over and over and over again by the time the war was done. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Fugitive Slave Act Re:L3 Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view.
--- John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: O.k. Question wasn't the Fugitive Slave Act a logical extension of the full faith and credit clause (which I believe was insisted upon Southerns at the Constitutional Convention who were worried about slavery in the new Union - but I could be wrong on that.) Likewise, is the Fugitive Slave Act really an all-that-radical reinterpretation of the Interstate Commerce clause, given the things that the IC clause has been used for since? And likewise, without taking the time to go back and reread my Constitution aren't there other pro-slavery positions of the Constitution that woudl justify the Fugitive Slave Act? JDG Actually, no, it wasn't justified by either. You're close though. 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. The Fugitive Slave clause. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, however, was a barbarity that went far beyond what the clause implied. I don't remember the exact details (y'all will have to cut me a little slack - my last class on the Civil War was four years ago) - but the end result was that any white southerner who claimed to have lost a slave could go north, grab the first African-American he saw, slave or free, and force the state to send him south as a slave. Some historian has actually gone through the records of people sent back in this way and determined that most were free blacks, not escaped slaves at all. Basically, the Constitution forbid Northern states from aiding the escape of slaves, but it didn't force them to help Southerners recapture those slaves. That's what the Fugitive Slave Act did, and why it was (among many other things) the worst violation of state's rights, ever. Other than that (and the famous, although usually misinterpreted, three-fifths clause) there are few to no mentions of slavery in the text of the Constitution. The Founders understood that slavery was deeply wrong. They also thought it was dying a fairly rapid natural death, so they weren't willing to force the issue. It was, at the time. Eli Whitney's invention of the cotton gin made slavery profitable once again, however, and the pro-slavery doctrine arose soon afterwards. In a sense, you could say that the American Civil War was a product of technological change, actually. Without the cotton gin, slavery would probably have been economically unsupportable, and the South might have been willing to agree to compensated emancipation, or something like that, anyways. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Fugitive Slave Act Re:L3 Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view.
- Original Message - From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 10:29 PM Subject: Re: The Fugitive Slave Act Re:L3 Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic,and a an Un- reasonable view. --- John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: O.k. Question wasn't the Fugitive Slave Act a logical extension of the full faith and credit clause (which I believe was insisted upon Southerns at the Constitutional Convention who were worried about slavery in the new Union - but I could be wrong on that.) Likewise, is the Fugitive Slave Act really an all-that-radical reinterpretation of the Interstate Commerce clause, given the things that the IC clause has been used for since? And likewise, without taking the time to go back and reread my Constitution aren't there other pro-slavery positions of the Constitution that woudl justify the Fugitive Slave Act? JDG Actually, no, it wasn't justified by either. You're close though. 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. The Fugitive Slave clause. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, however, was a barbarity that went far beyond what the clause implied. I don't remember the exact details (y'all will have to cut me a little slack - my last class on the Civil War was four years ago) - I think the exact details are at: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/fugitive.htm No wonder you didn't find it, it was a Yale site. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re:L3 Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view.
- Original Message - From: Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 3:13 PM Subject: Re: Bitter Melons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view. --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 7:41 PM Subject: Bitter Melons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view. other posts on this topic to boot. 1) Your doing it again, and this time, you are smothering a perfectly reasonable discussion on this human reaction which needs a name, with a frivilous and debatable discussion on WWII. (yet again) Nah, one post cannot smother a reasonable discussion. The fact of the matter is that you have not been successful in persuading people to accept some of your main premises. Thus, there is no discussion on how and why those premises are true. Indeed, your postulates require the dismissal of a large body of information; which makes them empirically suspect. I was not refering to the anti-semetic macro-thread, but rather the point that most people seem to jump to knee-jerk asumptions ...(what this thread was originaly about.) But, your arguments really didn't support that. Take states rights, for example. Historically, it originated with the Southern apologist school of history arguing that the Civil war was fought over states rights. There are a myriad of reasons why this is a smokescreen. Recently it was point out, I think by Gautam but I won't swear by it, that the South supported the most overwhelming pre-war abridgement of states rights by the federal government: the Fugitive Slave Act. During the argument over segregation, the segregationists relied heavily on States rights. One of the main apologists for segregation later admitted it was not a question of states right.Given this, it is very reasonable to be suspicious when states rights is brought up in American political discussions. Thus, this doesn't qualify as a knee jerk reaction. Since we've been covering Israel extensively, I'll only lightly touch of this. First, let me point out that everyone that I know of who has defended Israel on the list has also registered disagreement/disapproval of the policies of the government of Israel from time to time. This should indicate that not all criticism of Israel is considered anti-Semetic. Second, if you look at the unreasonable public criticism of Israel, you will see that there is an extremely high correlation with the expression of that criticism and other typical anti-Semetic expressions. Look at the folks who voted to call Zionism as a form of racism (ignoring much more xenophobic places like Japan, or France or Germany) and you will see many of them have embraced historical anti-Semetic big lies, like blood libel, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and denying the existence of the Holocaust. I don't see how it is reasonable to call the noting of these strong correlations as knee jerk reactions. The fact that some people of the same ethnicity were at war with you does not give you the right to force them into concentration camps. Sorry, but that is exactly like. Why do you keep on insisting what didn't happen happened? Who tried to wipe out Israel, a number of Arabs _including_ Palestinians who later lived in refugee camps. Who pushed the Palestinians who remained in Israel to leave? Mostly the Arabs who suggested that loyalty meant that the needed to leave. What happened to the Palestinians who stayed? They became citizens of Israel. Who set up the refugee camps? Egypt and Jordan. Who kept them in the camps for the first 20 years? The Egyptians and the Jordanians and the other Arabs who refused to let the refugees settle elsewhere in their lands. The reasonable criticism one could level at Israel was the failure to work hard enough to improve the conditions in the camps while they were under their control. But, that is not exactly like a program to kill all Palestinians. We did the same thing to the Japanese in WWII as well, didn't we? What we did to the Japanese-Americans was different from both what Israel is doing and what the Nazis did. It is exactly like neither. What we did to the Japanese-Americans was intern them. If you look at the original concentration camps you will see that what was done there was significantly worse than what the US did to the Japanese-Americans, and not nearly as bad as what the Germans did to the Jews: http://www.anglo-boer.co.za/concentration.html In early March 1901 Lord Kitchener decided to break the stalemate that the extremely costly war had settled into. It was costing the British taxpayer £2,5 million a month. He decided to sweep the country bare of everything that can give sustenance to the Boers i.e. cattle, sheep, horses, women and
Re:L3 Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view.
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But, your arguments really didn't support that. Take states rights, for example. Historically, it originated with the Southern apologist school of history arguing that the Civil war was fought over states rights. There are a myriad of reasons why this is a smokescreen. Recently it was point out, I think by Gautam but I won't swear by it, that the South supported the most overwhelming pre-war abridgement of states rights by the federal government: the Fugitive Slave Act. During the argument over segregation, the segregationists relied heavily on States rights. One of the main apologists for segregation later admitted it was not a question of states right.Given this, it is very reasonable to be suspicious when states rights is brought up in American political discussions. Thus, this doesn't qualify as a knee jerk reaction. Hi Dan. I did make the point about the Fugitive Slave Act. To be totally fair to the state's rights argument, however, the concept of state's rights is central to the American constitional structure and probably one of the most important elements in the success of the American experiment. I think it's an entirely legitimate argument, and started out that way in real tensions based on legitimate principles between the Democratic-Republicans (in favor of state's rights, as a first approximation) and the Federalists (in favor of a strong federal government). The problem with the state's rights argument isn't that it is invalid on its face, or that everyone making that argument was doing it for convenience sake - it's that, starting in the early 1800s, it was co-opted by pro-slavery forces, which would eventually become the dominant voice using the state's rights argument. But one of the strongest arguments used against the Fugitive Slave Act was, of course...state's rights. So while I think it was fair to look with suspicion at people who made the claim that they were important in the 1950s, or even the 1970s, I don't think it would be fair to do so today. Had the claim of state's rights _always_ been about race, it would be, but it didn't start out that way - it was perverted by people who were using a legitimate argument for illegitimate purposes. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: L3 Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view.
Dan Minette wrote: Its true that you can find some historian on any side of an issue. That doesn't mean that there is not a good way to determine what is likely, unlikely, and very very unlikely. For example, its quite unlikely that the Civil War was fought over states rights. The Civil War was *waged* over slavery. Some of those doing the fighting were fighting for states' rights, so arguably it was *fought* over that. A lot of those in the South put their state above the nation. Lee wouldn't fight for the Union because his Virginia was part of the Confederacy. And this putting the state before the nation was probably one of the major factors that lost the war for the South. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: L3 Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view.
Julia wrote: Dan Minette wrote: Its true that you can find some historian on any side of an issue. That doesn't mean that there is not a good way to determine what is likely, unlikely, and very very unlikely. For example, its quite unlikely that the Civil War was fought over states rights. The Civil War was *waged* over slavery. Some of those doing the fighting were fighting for states' rights, so arguably it was *fought* over that. A lot of those in the South put their state above the nation. Lee wouldn't fight for the Union because his Virginia was part of the Confederacy. And this putting the state before the nation was probably one of the major factors that lost the war for the South. But that's personal loyalty, not really a stand in favor of states' rights, don't you think? -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: L3 Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view.
Doug Pensinger wrote: Julia wrote: Dan Minette wrote: Its true that you can find some historian on any side of an issue. That doesn't mean that there is not a good way to determine what is likely, unlikely, and very very unlikely. For example, its quite unlikely that the Civil War was fought over states rights. The Civil War was *waged* over slavery. Some of those doing the fighting were fighting for states' rights, so arguably it was *fought* over that. A lot of those in the South put their state above the nation. Lee wouldn't fight for the Union because his Virginia was part of the Confederacy. And this putting the state before the nation was probably one of the major factors that lost the war for the South. But that's personal loyalty, not really a stand in favor of states' rights, don't you think? That's what some of the folks were fighting for in their own minds. If you'd asked one of them if the subject of the war was slavery or states rights, they'd have said states rights. But if you'd just asked one, he'd probably have said his state. Defending his homeland or something. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view.
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It wasn't even a side claim -I WAS MAKEING- it was simply in response to that discussion. So, still, if you want references for that I know you can find them, If you already do not believe that then I doubt you will trust them anyway. I watch a lot of history channel, (sometimes I need brackground noise, and it might as well be somewhat informative, other times it's Science Channel, or wings or TLC). The subject came up on one of those docs so I recognized the reference when OTHERS brought it up. The history channel is not always a reliable source. I often catch them in errors or over-broad generalizations. Some of the programming is good but I would be cautious before taking everything at face value. It doesn't matter whether this particular point was a focus for your argument or not. QUestionable evidence can lead to interesting or flawed conclusions. This is part and parcial to the study of history, and one of the many things I learned is to be considerate of the sources being used, and to evaluate their legitimacy, bias, or factualness before using them to support an argument. That's the point I wasn't using it to support and argument. If you snip that part, you alter my whole statment to mean almost the oposite of what I was saying. Asking me to cite something I was saying the validity of which was inconsequential is ludircous. I dissagree; you should be prepared to defend your evidence no matter how inconsequential it is. Otherwise, if its not reliable, why use it as evidence to begin with? I wasn't using it as evidence, I was trying to say that that whole buisness didn't matter, the evedence didn't need support, becouse my argument was that the truth of the evidence did not matter. Besides, for myself, I personally am questioning the statement IN AND OF ITSELF, completely divorced from the arguments. Good. If you are personaly that interested in the topic, why ask someone else to do the research for you? Because you are the one who made the statement, and were asked for your sources? Hay, if I am responding to -others- suggestions, and knowing that there are historians who have made simmilar suggestions, and if I am saying that the information which is questionable makes no difference, then why would -I- spend any time tyring to show references for it? I'm saing hay, even if that were true, it still doesn't matter. So why would I care to spend any time trying to prove it to be true? This is just silly! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view.
- Original Message - From: Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 7:41 PM Subject: Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view. other posts on this topic to boot. 1) Your doing it again, and this time, you are smothering a perfectly resonable discussion on this human reaction which needs a name, with a frivilous and debatable discussion on WWII. (yet again) Nah, one post cannot smother a reasonable discussion. The fact of the matter is that you have not been sucessful in persuading people to accept some of your main premises. Thus, there is no discussion on how and why those premises are true. Indeed, your postualtes require the dismissal of a large body of information; which makes them emperically suspect. 2) No one, even the professor we were discussing in the previous topic, ever compared Isreal to Nazi Germany on an equal scale. Let me quote: And what are they doing with the Palestinians every day? They're killing them. They're doing the same thing that was done to them It's exactly like what Hitler did to the Jews Exactly like are very strong words. Its true that he didn't extend his falsehood to include the statement that millions of Palestinians have died...but this statement is so patently false, except in the most trivial sensethe sense in which people defending themselves are the moral equivalant of mass murderers. The underlying reality of the Middle East is that the Arabs have been trying to eliminate Israel for over 50 years. They attacked the day Israel formed, with the intent of wiping it off the face of the earth. They put the Palestinians in refugee camps because it was politically expedient to do so. The Palestinian leadership has turned down a reasonable two state solution, thinking that it can achieve a one state solution through terrorist attacks. It is very possible that this technique will work. Equating that to a historical event where a government systematically murdered its own citizens who were trying to be good citizens is both inaccurate and outrageous. That is not merely criticizing Israel, that's telling an outrageous lie. The comparison was based on an axis, and suggested that both Isreal and Nazi Germany in WWII are on the same side of the origin. There is nothing in exactly alike that would lead one to believe that. If that were true, than someone who once was a little short with their children would be exactly like a parent who tortured their own children, burning, starving, and raping them. Both are on the same side of should do/shouldn't do. They are not exactly alike. 3) The information you have provided about hitler is a bit questionable. There is evidence that he was appaled at what was going on but could not stop it. Cites? The human desire to see a situation in black and white, to vilify or raise as a hero, is an enemy of truth, and a deterant to our species maturing to the point where we can develop a global society without such evils as raceism. Denying history has never happened. 4) The association discussed above in 2 is in no way anti-semetic any more than it is anti-Germanic. Malicious lies about Jews are anti-Semetic. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view.
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 7:41 PM Subject: Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view. other posts on this topic to boot. 1) Your doing it again, and this time, you are smothering a perfectly resonable discussion on this human reaction which needs a name, with a frivilous and debatable discussion on WWII. (yet again) Nah, one post cannot smother a reasonable discussion. The fact of the matter is that you have not been sucessful in persuading people to accept some of your main premises. Thus, there is no discussion on how and why those premises are true. Indeed, your postualtes require the dismissal of a large body of information; which makes them emperically suspect. I was not refering to the anti-semetic macro-thread, but rather the point that most people seem to jump to knee-jerk asumptions ...(what this thread was originaly about.) However, it now seems that I have been labled and AS and so any thread that I try and participate in suddenly becomes the same AS discussion thread. Almost proves my pointdoesn't it? 2) No one, even the professor we were discussing in the previous topic, ever compared Isreal to Nazi Germany on an equal scale. Let me quote: And what are they doing with the Palestinians every day? They're killing them. They're doing the same thing that was done to them It's exactly like what Hitler did to the Jews Exactly like are very strong words. Its true that he didn't extend his falsehood to include the statement that millions of Palestinians have died...but this statement is so patently false, except in the most trivial sensethe sense in which people defending themselves are the moral equivalant of mass murderers. The underlying reality of the Middle East is that the Arabs have been trying to eliminate Israel for over 50 years. They attacked the day Israel formed, with the intent of wiping it off the face of the earth. They put the Palestinians in refugee camps because it was politically expedient to do so. The Palestinian leadership has turned down a reasonable two state solution, thinking that it can achieve a one state solution through terrorist attacks. It is very possible that this technique will work. Equating that to a historical event where a government systematically murdered its own citizens who were trying to be good citizens is both inaccurate and outrageous. That is not merely criticizing Israel, that's telling an outrageous lie. The fact that some people of the same ethnicity were at war with you does not give you the right to force them into concentration camps. Sorry, but that is exactly like. We did the same thing to the Japanese in WWII as well, didn't we? I would also say that is exctly like What was done in Germany. Now, there was much -MORE- done in Germany, and MUCH WORSE! What is more, I do believe he was regering to the Malitias, and not the governemnt. And those Malitias -have been- indicriminatly killing people. Also, they are not my words, only an example I was using to show how people make knee-jerk reactions and then associate one concept with a doctrin unfoundly. Besides, you Dan, quite often do this, you twist words to mean what you want them to mean, context be dambed, knowing full well what the original speaker ment. Arguemnt for arguemnt's sake, not to find truth, not to understand a disagreement, not to proswade, simply to win the argument. Often an argument that you yourself have created. So forgive me if I don't put to much creedence in this particular twisting. But you can keep crying Wolf if it makes you feel good. You can vilify me, you can knee-jerk, and gather support for your knee- jerking, but it doesn't make it reality. You can acuse me of Anti-Sematism, but it doesn't make me an anti- semite. It stands that disagreeing with the policies of a nation, does not make one a raceist. You still have failed to show how that could posibley be the case. Besides you are addressing me here, these were not even my words, I was mearly using them to make a point. My personal opion on Israli policies is distinct from this. And what is more even if they were, they would be just that, opinoins on -Israli- pollicy. I for one am capable of distinguishing -Isreal- the country and -Jews- the group of people. The comparison was based on an axis, and suggested that both Isreal and Nazi Germany in WWII are on the same side of the origin. There is nothing in exactly alike that would lead one to believe that. If that were true, than someone who once was a little short with their children would be exactly like a parent who tortured their own children, burning, starving, and raping them. Both are on the same side of should
Re: Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view.
Yahoo, truncated my message, so can't refer to the original text, but I think the request for citations in this is entirely reasonable. The statement was made that there is evidence that Hitler was appalled by the Holocaust (paraphrased), which goes against any popular view of his objectives. Saying some evidence without providing the evidence (or providing citations) makes for a weak argument... Damon. = Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view.
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yahoo, truncated my message, so can't refer to the original text, but I think the request for citations in this is entirely reasonable. The statement was made that there is evidence that Hitler was appalled by the Holocaust (paraphrased), which goes against any popular view of his objectives. Saying some evidence without providing the evidence (or providing citations) makes for a weak argument... Damon. Your falling right into the whole twist of Dans post. You obviously didn't read everything I wrote, only Dan's selective editing. You see I said in effect that whether or not he gave the orders did not and does not matter. He, as the leader of the nation or impire had the same responsability as if he had given the orders. There was certainly no question about whether or not he knew what was happening, so giving the orders (or not) makes absolutly no differnce as to his moral charachter and of course _guilt_. I ask you, why would I spend any time trying to find citations for somthing that I was saying was inconsequential? If you had been following the thread(s) you would know that others had mentioned that there are differing opinions on the mans feelings and intent. I was esentialy saying that none of that really matters. Dan used a portion of that statment out of context as if I were defending Hittler and then reqested citations for that deffence. I do not personaly care to engage in that deffence. Especialy when I just got through shooting down any actual deffence of the man that particular possibility could provide. I was discussing a knee-jerk mistake people often make. I will continue to wonder what Dan's motives are in pourpously using the same pattern as a tactic in an argument that had no reason to be an argument to begin with. I can not imagin that he has anything against me personaly. Perhaps he is just so wrapped up in knee-jerking that he honestly thinks I have opinions I do not have, and perhaps he further feels obligated as a good citizen to squash any bad ideas he thinks I might be spreading. If he can't have an official censorship, then he can create a kind of social censorship. While would make me feel much more sympathetic to him, and while I would then feel sorry for his ugly view of the world, and hope that he would some day overcome it, I am much more inclined to believe that it is a much more simple explination. He simply has an egotistical need to turn any conversation into an argument and then ~win~ it. The fact that he was useing the very oddity I was discussing as anoying as a tachtic in that arguemnt, all the better. And what better way to win an arguemnt than to make your apponent out to be an anti-semite. Or maybe it is simpler still, maybe he just is incapable of understanding the consepts being discussed and is getting himself wrapped up in the examples. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view.
Jan Coffey wrote: Dan used a portion of that statment out of context as if I were defending Hittler and then reqested citations for that deffence. I could easily be wrong, but I read Dan's response as a request for evidence that Hitler was appalled at what was going on. I know that was just a side-claim that wasn't your main argument there, but I'd like to see evidence for it myself, because it doesn't fit with anything I've heard about him. You're right that even if it was true, that doesn't absolve him of responsibility for the Holocaust. It seemed to me that Dan trimmed that part, not because he was trying to make you look like you were defending Hitler, but because he wasn't commenting on it. But you're right, that snipping could make you look really bad, taken out of context. __ Steve Sloan . Huntsville, Alabama = [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brin-L list pages .. http://www.brin-l.org Science Fiction-themed online store . http://www.sloan3d.com/store Chmeee's 3D Objects http://www.sloan3d.com/chmeee 3D and Drawing Galleries .. http://www.sloansteady.com Software Science Fiction, Science, and Computer Links Science fiction scans . http://www.sloan3d.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view.
Nah, one post cannot smother a reasonable discussion. The fact of the matter is that you have not been successful in persuading people to accept some of your main premises. Godwin's Law = 1 a couple of threads ago.. This thread's history... It can't be smothered because its already dead, its NOT a reasonable discussion. Thus, there is no discussion on how and why those premises are true. Indeed, your postualtes require the dismissal of a large body of information; which makes them emperically suspect. You are correct here... See Benford's Law of Controversy Passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real information available. Game Over Nerd From Hell ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view.
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steve Sloan II [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jan Coffey wrote: Dan used a portion of that statment out of context as if I were defending Hittler and then reqested citations for that deffence. I could easily be wrong, but I read Dan's response as a request for evidence that Hitler was appalled at what was going on. I know that was just a side-claim that wasn't your main argument there, but I'd like to see evidence for it myself, because it doesn't fit with anything I've heard about him. It wasn't even a side claim -I WAS MAKEING- it was simply in response to that discussion. So, still, if you want references for that I know you can find them, If you already do not believe that then I doubt you will trust them anyway. I watch a lot of history channel, (sometimes I need brackground noise, and it might as well be somewhat informative, other times it's Science Channel, or wings or TLC). The subject came up on one of those docs so I recognized the reference when OTHERS brought it up. You're right that even if it was true, that doesn't absolve him of responsibility for the Holocaust. It seemed to me that Dan trimmed that part, not because he was trying to make you look like you were defending Hitler, but because he wasn't commenting on it. But you're right, that snipping could make you look really bad, taken out of context. If you snip that part, you alter my whole statment to mean almost the oposite of what I was saying. Asking me to cite something I was saying the validity of which was inconsequential is ludircous. If you are personaly that interested in the topic, why ask someone else to do the research for you? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view.
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steve Sloan II [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jan Coffey wrote: Dan used a portion of that statment out of context as if I were defending Hittler and then reqested citations for that deffence. I could easily be wrong, but I read Dan's response as a request for evidence that Hitler was appalled at what was going on. I know that was just a side-claim that wasn't your main argument there, but I'd like to see evidence for it myself, because it doesn't fit with anything I've heard about him. You're right that even if it was true, that doesn't absolve him of responsibility for the Holocaust. It seemed to me that Dan trimmed that part, not because he was trying to make you look like you were defending Hitler, but because he wasn't commenting on it. But you're right, that snipping could make you look really bad, taken out of context. And another thing if that were so then why this? DAN Thus, there is no discussion on how and why those premises are true. Indeed, your postualtes require the dismissal of a large body of information; which makes them emperically suspect. __ After all, the are are not ~MY~ postualtes are they? They are the postulates Dan has ascribed to me. Now why would he do that? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view.
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nah, one post cannot smother a reasonable discussion. The fact of the matter is that you have not been successful in persuading people to accept some of your main premises. Godwin's Law = 1 a couple of threads ago.. This thread's history... It can't be smothered because its already dead, its NOT a reasonable discussion. You believe that a discussion of ascribing viewpoints one does not have, of knee-jerk response, of ignoring the reality of what one has said and assuming they are subscribing to a doctring they do not have? This is not a resonable discussion? Or is it that this thread has been infected and matastisized with such an unreasonable practice? Thus, there is no discussion on how and why those premises are true. Indeed, your postualtes require the dismissal of a large body of information; which makes them emperically suspect. You are correct here... See Benford's Law of Controversy Passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real information available. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view.
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tom Beck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since pretty much the entire basis of Hitler's reality was that he had to come to power in order to rid Germany (and the world) of the Jews. I thought it was to fulfill the destiny of greatness for the Ayrian people. The Jews were the main enemy who needed to be eliminated to stop them from interfearing with this glorious goal. (Obviously I don't believe this %$#; just trying to remember the logic that he followed.) Well, that was of course part of his madness, but it is reasonable to argue that he was more against the Jews than he was for the Aryans. After all, he materially damaged Germany's chances of winning the war in the East (or at least of forestalling defeat for a lot longer) by his policy to transport Jews to the camps. One could argue that he thought destroying the Jews was more important. other posts on this topic to boot. 1) Your doing it again, and this time, you are smothering a perfectly resonable discussion on this human reaction which needs a name, with a frivilous and debatable discussion on WWII. (yet again) 2) No one, even the professor we were discussing in the previous topic, ever compared Isreal to Nazi Germany on an equal scale. The comparison was based on an axis, and suggested that both Isreal and Nazi Germany in WWII are on the same side of the origin. Exagerating anothers concept and then debating the exageration is akin to lying about hearsay. 3) The information you have provided about hitler is a bit questionable. There is evidence that he was appaled at what was going on but could not stop it. What the actual events, feelings, and intent of the man were, he was clearly not a person of good morals and charachter. If he was not in fact directly responsible, he was responsible enough to stop it if he cared to. And that makes him in effect directly responsible. The human desire to see a situation in black and white, to vilify or raise as a hero, is an enemy of truth, and a deterant to our species maturing to the point where we can develop a global society without such evils as raceism. 4) The association discussed above in 2 is in no way anti-semetic any more than it is anti-Germanic. We can debate about the sevarity, and the positions on the axis we are discussing, but to state an opinion about such a position can not any any way be construed as being an assertion that all persons of a particular liniage or celebrating and/ or practicing a particular religion are evil, inferior, or even troubeling. It can not even be construde as a determination of taste. If a man compares the flavor of gin-and-tonic to that of bitter mellon, it would not make sence to then assume that the man had a dislike for alchohol of any sort. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
