Posted on 06/09/2009 8:47:35 AM PDT by Davy Buck
My oh my, what would the critics, the Civil War publications, publishers, and bloggers do if it weren't for the bad boys of the Confederacy and those who study them and also those who wish to honor their ancestors who fought for the Confederacy?
(Excerpt) Read more at oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com ...
So? The states delegated the task of negotiating with foreign governments to their servant and creation, the federal government. The states were more likely to get better results if they spoke in unison through their designated agent. They directed their designated agent through the mechanism of the Articles.
Read Federalist 43.
I'm guessing you mean the part that says, "A compact between independent sovereigns, founded on ordinary acts of legislative authority, can pretend to no higher validity than a league or treaty between the parties. It is an established doctrine on the subject of treaties, that all the articles are mutually conditions of each other; that a breach of any one article is a breach of the whole treaty; and that a breach, committed by either of the parties, absolves the others, and authorizes them, if they please, to pronounce the compact violated and void. Should it unhappily be necessary to appeal to these delicate truths for a justification for dispensing with the consent of particular States to a dissolution of the federal pact, will not the complaining parties find it a difficult task to answer the MULTIPLIED and IMPORTANT infractions with which they may be confronted? The time has been when it was incumbent on us all to veil the ideas which this paragraph exhibits."
I've never been very impressed by Madison's argument. Veil the idea of future secession from the Constitution when you are just in the process of doing it from the Articles? What difficult tasks? What infractions? What a meaningless statement.
Bledsoe discusses Madison's argument in the first four or so pages of his 1866 book, "Is Davis a Traitor? Secession a Constitutional Right Prior to the War of 1861." [Link]
To you, anyway.
Generally, when somebody reaches for nazi analogies, it's a sign that they don't have any real arguments for their side.
The funny thing is that if somebody compared the Confederacy to the Nazis you'd probably get indignant about it, but that's the first thing you reach for yourself when you go on the attack.
The North won the war, so some people go off on Union infringements of liberty, as though the US represented all the evils of excessive government. But the Confederacy could be as tyrannical as the Union, if not more so.
Take a look at the recent book, The State of Jones or the earlier study, The Free State of Jones. You'll see as much government corruption and repression in the Confederacy -- and as much popular resistance to it -- as there ever was up north.
In this one case I truly believe that he is one troll that we could “ignore to death”. His posts are colorful and unintentionally hilarious but incoherent to the point of distraction, and ultimately meaningless, so I doubt that anyone would notice him gone, but it would be an interesting experiment...
I used to think "standwatie" was the invention of some left-wing performance art troupe out of San Francisco.
He's so off the wall that it all has to be a joke -- and a political one, as well, designed to make Lost Causers look stupid.
But he may just be another computerized Internet bot. Somebody's invented a "watie-izer" that produces strings of jibberish with bizarre capitalization, punctuation and syntax, and they've hooked it up to respond whenever anyone posts to swattie, or whenever certain keywords appear in a thread.
Of course it is, and quit unfair to boot. But I will ignore all that. ;-)
DM:"More specifically, and to correct your assertions which you now seem to be backing away from, the Harriet Lane arrived in the vicinity of Charleston Harbor on the afternoon of the 11th of April, 1861."
There are actually a number of different points being debated here, which I've tried now several times to untangle and address one by one. So, let's start with, "who fired first?":
DM:"Your posting remarks go on to say that the "first shot" was fired by the Union troops on January 8. Then you contradict that by saying that Citadel troops fired the first shot a day later. I believe that the relevancy of these contradictory remarks is questionable, despite the fact that no greater authority than the US Coast guard says that the Harriet Lane fired the first shot of the war:"
If you had followed these posts more carefully, you'd have noted that rustbucket first quoted from Wikipedia about Fort Pickens, Florida:
Wiki: Lt. Slemmer's "decision to abandon Barrancas was hastened when, around midnight of January 8, 1861, his guards repelled a group of local men intending to take the fort. Some historians suggest that these were the first shots fired by United States forces in the Civil War."
I responded by first reminding rustbucket that "some historians" is not "ALL historians." Second, I argued that the January 8 shots at Fort Pickens could not, BY DEFINITION, be part of the Civil War because Florida did not secede until January 10, 1861. So Lt. Slemmer's actions on January 8 were simply a local response to local lawlessness.
Finally, I quoted from the Wikipedia article on Fort Sumter where it says:
Wiki: "United States attempts to resupply and reinforce the garrison were repulsed on January 9, 1861 when the first shots of the war prevented the steamer Star of the West, a ship hired by the Union to transport troops and supplies to Fort Sumter, from completing the task. "
DM:"Rustbucket has been kind enough to point out the limitations of trying to use Wikipedia as your only source of information..."
Rustbucket and I agree that Wikipedia is a good quick reference for common historical data, and especially useful when it agrees with rustbucket! ;-) It is not, of course, my "only source."
Indeed, the whole discussion of whether the Harriet Lane unloaded reinforcements at Fort Pickens BEFORE going on to Fort Sumter does NOT arise from any Wikipedia article, but rather from a book I paid good money to buy: Fredriksen 2008 Civil War Almanac
This Almanac says, on April 8: "Federal troops on board the US revenue cutter Harriet Lane land to bolster the garrison at Fort Pickens, Florida."
To date, I've been unable to verify this, and now suspect the report is in error.
When did the Harriet Lane arrive in Charleston Harbor, and what shots were fired? From your own link:
DM's link:"The Harriet Lane, the service's first operational steam cutter, fired the first shot from a naval vessel during the war on 11 April 1861 when she put a round across the bow of the steamer Nashville entering Charleston harbor during the siege of Ft. Sumter. Unknown to CAPT Faunce of the Lane, the Nashville was actually a Confederate blockade runner; when challenged, she hoisted the Stars and Stripes and was allowed to pass. "
From Wikipedia on the Harriet Lane:
Wiki: "She departed New York 8 April and arrived off Charleston 11 April. The next day she fired a shot across the bow of United States Mail Steamer Nashville on her monthly route from New York with passengers and merchandise to Charleston,[2][3][4] when that merchantman appeared with no colors flying."
Note the three reference numbers -- they point to official records plus New York Times reports.
Now we come to the heart of the matter. You end with four pointed paragraphs arguing that President Lincoln started the Civil War by sending ships to reinforce Fort Sumter -- indeed you call it an "attack".
Well, well... over many posts here, and with very lengthy rehearsals of historical data, I've argued the South actually began the War of Southern Rebellion almost immediately after South Carolina's declaration of secession in December 1860, and in many Southern states BEFORE they even officially seceded.
They did this by illegally seizing dozens and dozens of Federal forts, armories, customs houses and ships. Of course, Southern defenders would say these facilities and people no longer belonged to the Union, but that is simply not true on two main counts:
First, a good many of these facilities were seized by force before the state had seceded. That by definition makes those seizures acts of insurrection, rebellion, "domestic violence" or even invasion of Federal property. And the US Constitution is clear about such acts.
Second, even after secession, NONE of these properties would AUTOMATICALLY become Southern assets, any more than properties belonging to citizens of, say, France. So their seizure by force were clearly acts of war by the South against the Union.
As a result, after the destruction and surrender of Fort Sumter, President Lincoln declared the South to be in "insurrection" against the Union. In response, President Davis declared war on the United States. There was never a Union declaration of war against the Confederacy.
All of which leads to the question many posters have asked, and I've responded now several times: what about secession today? What I say is that secession -- if peaceful, lawful, negotiated and approved by Congress is one thing. Violent insurrection, rebellion, "domestic violence" or invasions of Federal facilities are something altogether different.
What a sad, angry little man you must be.
Confused and narrow minded? I don't think so.
But I do note your four links all quote the same bogus data, and none link directly to the 1860 census.
Any number of sites will give you actual data for US per capita incomes in 1860. They all are in the range of $100 or $200 per year -- not $thousands! Here are just a few:
EH Net: Economics of the Civil War
Fogel, Robert William The Rise and Fall of American Slavery: Without Consent or Contract page 85
Obviously we're debating definitions of words -- what is a Union? What is a Colony? What is a State? And while we're at it, which came first, the chicken or the egg? ;-)
If you claim, for example, there was no "Union" until after ratification of the Constitution in 1787, then obviously, States came before Union, by 11 years.
But if you agree the Union had its beginnings -- however humble, modest or imperfect -- with the First Continental Congress in 1774, at a time when there were no states, only colonies: then the Union preceded the States by nearly two years.
Indeed, the Colonies did not become States until declared so by the Union, on July 4, 1776.
I say the clear truth of the matter is that Union and States are as closely related as chickens & eggs. One would not exist without the other -- with no Union the states would still be colonies, and without declaring them States, the Union could not have existed.
"We joined with other countries to fight the Axis powers in WWII. It didn't mean we were in a Union with the Allies in Lincoln's sense of Union."
There was no WWII equivalent of the Continental Congress. Today you might call the United Nations its equivalent, however, the UN was founded by sovereign independent nations, not colonies. Remember, it was the Continental Congress which declared those colonies to be States.
And the Continental Congress did take on many functions of a national government before the Declaration of Independence, including such critical matters as raising and commanding the Armies, printing money, negotiating with other nations for military support and loans, etc.
Bottom line, I'd say the Union and States are as closely related as chickens & eggs, or man & woman, or whatever analogy might come to mind where one could just not exist without the other. And I think that's pretty close to what Lincoln was arguing in July of 1861.
You can't accept the fact that you are on the side of statism. "Winning" the Civil War put the country on the track to full fledged statism, socialism. Don't think everyone in the country "appreciates" the Yankee "preservation" efforts. And yes, speaking for myself, the attitudes at the various types of statist are all shades of the same color, whether they be federalists or Nazis.
I think the first real Union was the Confederation formed under the Articles of Confederation in 1781. Before that, the Continental Congress acknowledged in 1777 in the document I linked to in post 1658 that the states were sovereign and independent. The Continental Congress was not sovereign. It was just an association that colonies or states could listen to or not, as the case warranted.
The Massachusetts description of the 1774 Continental Congress said it was to be a meeting of committees from the different colonies. That's a Union?
You and Lincoln claim our Union began in 1774? In 1774, the Continental Congress sent the following to the King which said in part [Link]:
"We, his majesty's most loyal subjects, the delegates of the several colonies of ... avowing our allegiance to his majesty ..."
Some Union. It bowed its head to its sovereign across the sea.
Wiki: Lt. Slemmer's "decision to abandon Barrancas was hastened when, around midnight of January 8, 1861, his guards repelled a group of local men intending to take the fort. Some historians suggest that these were the first shots fired by United States forces in the Civil War."
And
Rustbucket and I agree that Wikipedia is a good quick reference for common historical data, and especially useful when it agrees with rustbucket! ;-)
Yes, we do, and to the "useful" part I say, "Right on!" LOL.
Actually, you'll remember that in post 1121 where I quoted from Wikipedia about the Fort Barrancas first shot of the war, I warned that it was from Wikipedia. Then in that same post, I quoted information that confirmed what Wikipedia said from a history book I had bought at Fort Pickens. Later, in a subsequent post 1367, I provided yet another reference to the Fort Barrancas first shot, a report by one of the federal officers in Barrancas on that occasion.
I have been guilty before of citing stuff from Wikipedia with it as my sole source.
I responded by first reminding rustbucket that "some historians" is not "ALL historians."
Actually, your first words were, "Some "historians"? I doubt that." To answer your apparent doubt that there were historians who thought that, I supplied the job titles of some who helped prepare the manuscript I quoted from, including local and NPS historians, museum curators, and the president of the local historical society.
I'm off on another trip out of town at the break of dawn. Talk to you later.
And if the Confederacy had won the war the country would also be on the track to full-fledged statism. All the more so, since the people who bitch now about the Yankees would be running things to their own advantage and using government in their own interest.
Or at least some of them would. The others would be complaining about how they lost their freedom when they let the secessionists take over. But you wouldn't be able to blame everything wrong about the country on the Yankees.
It was like that for a large part of 20th century history. Southern Democrats were more than willing to share in the increasing power of government. It was only when federal power cut against their own interests that they changed sides.
FWIW, "Statism" is a pretty meaningless term. At first it looks like a way of condemning socialists and other big government types. Eventually you realize that anyone who believes that any sort of government at all is necessary is a "statist" to some libertarians.
In any event, it would be hard to argue that Jefferson Davis, Alexander Stephens, and the other Confederate politicians weren't "statist" -- and more statist than the preseccession order that they overthrew.
“Eventually you realize that anyone who believes that any sort of government at all is necessary is a “statist” to some libertarians.”
...or out~and~out anarchistic Lost Cause Losers...
Which I let go by without comment, figuring it was more important then to focus on larger issues than which historians might agree or disagree with which other historians.
But now that you bring it up again... ;-)
The article you quoted from was Wikipedia, and it did not name which historians agreed & disagreed. But I take the term "some historians" to be Wiki's acknowledgment that the claim is dubious, at best.
Not the fact that warning shots were fired -- that seems not in dispute. The issue is whether those shots constituted the "first shots" of the Civil War. And this is clearly a matter of interpretation.
The South began threatening & using force against Union facilities and people almost immediately after South Carolina seceded in December 1860. In most cases these were not opposed by Union force. We've discussed two exceptions -- Forts Pickens and Sumter -- but Lincoln mentioned two others: Forts Taylor and Jefferson in the Florida Keys.
So while the South seized dozens of Union facilities, the Union attempted to defend just four forts -- Pickens, Taylor, Jefferson and Sumter. Three of these were successful, but the defense of Sumter lead to artillery duals which caused Lincoln to declare the South in "insurrection," and Davis to declare war on the United States.
I say the Union's January 8 defense of Fort Pickens BEFORE Florida seceded was not an act of war, simply local crowd control. On the other hand the South's January 9 firing on Star of the West in seceded Charleston Harbor clearly was, imho...
I did some googling on the 1860 census. Here is what Wikipedia says about it:
Then I went to the 1860 US Census itself, and after considerable looking was able to clear up a number of issues, for examples:
"...in the whole United States each man woman and child is represented by the sum of $607."
This would be consistent with per capita INCOMES in the range of $100 or $200, but certainly not of two to four thousands of dollars.
Now, let's go back to the beginning of this debate and look at how these numbers compare to my original claims. I said then that one reason the North won the war -- possibly the only reason -- was the North had twice the number of people with twice the per capita income. I said that from memory, so, after looking them up, what are the facts?
The white population of the Union was nearly four times greater than the white population of the Confederacy
Overall average per capita income Southern whites was about 25% higher than Notherners, all 25% coming from slavery.
Doing the math shows 76% of economic activity in the North, 24% in the South.
Where were we?
;>)
I answered that already: the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, "anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding" and can take appropriate action when the Constitution is violated. That's as specific as your 10th Amendment mumbo-jumbo, if not more so.
Actually, your claim is "mumbo-jumbo" - the Tenth Amendment is exceptionally specific.
Because if you pencil in reservations and amendments when you sign a contract, I can refuse to sign. In the case of ratification, the Constitution was submitted to state conventions for an up or down vote. Congress couldn't say, "Virginia is part of the union only under these conditions and New Hampshire only under those."
Sorry, but you just 'jumped the shark.' You're suggesting that, if a State ratified the Constitution, with the proviso that it accepted the odd numbered articles, but rejected the even numbered articles, the other parties to the compact would be magically forced to accept that State as a member of the union.
In fact, I suspect the other parties to the compact saw nothing objectionable, with regard to the reservation of the right of secession. After all, the union in question had been formed by the secession of the member States from a self-proclaimed "perpetual" union.
Jefferson wasn't around when the Constitution was written and adopted, and a lot of what he says has more to do with his role as a factional leader, rather than a legal scholar.
My - you're quite picky, aren't you? You're willing to insist that the federal government "can take appropriate action when the Constitution is violated," no specific violation of ANY written article, section, or clause necessary, but you insist that the remarks of Mr. Jefferson are irrelevant because he "wasn't around" (he was serving his country overseas, IIRC). You remind me of my neighbors, who want to ignore the votes of our troops when they're out of the country.
I'm used to dealing with people like you (and they all vote D@mocrat) - read Mr. Madison's Virginia Resolutions, and his Report on the Virginia Resolutions. Mr. Madison 'was around,' and his written, public statements are consistent with Mr. Jefferson's Kentucky Resolutions...
But you haven't dealt with my original point: the fact that a state might possibly have gotten away with secession in the early years of the Republic doesn't mean that the Constitution allowed unilateral secession.
I have not dealt with it, because your "original point" is idiotic - it is directly analogous to stating that 'the fact that a resident of Washington DC might possibly have gotten away with owning a handgun in the early years of the Republic doesn't mean that the Constitution allowed personal firearms ownership.' It has no bearing, whatsoever, on the constitutionality of the action.
Republics, federations, and constitutions are weak in their early years. Many die soon after they're born. It takes time for respect for constitutions to develop and for factions to learn to put the constitution above their own will and interest.
Obviously, you're stuck in your own learning phase - you insist that the written Constitution must conform to your "own will and interest."
John Adams could have refused to hold elections in 1800 or to turn over the White House to Jefferson afterwards. It would have been unconstitutional, but he could have done it and if he had, he would have been more likely to get away with it, than Clinton or Bush would have been.
Sorry to say it, but now I know you're a cool-aid drinker. If Mr. Adams and his political party had "refused to hold elections in 1800 or to turn over the White House to Jefferson," there would have been an armed response from the States (please see Federalist No. 46, which was fresh in the memories of the people of the several States, and which you have apparently never read).
That wouldn't have meant that secession was a right enshrined in the [Constitution] -- all the more so, since the 10th Amendment hadn't even been ratified.
What it would have meant, actually, was that the right to secede was reserved by the States as parties to the compact, and that the federal government had never been delegated the power to prevent it. That was true in 1789, as it was in 1860...
Your problem is attaching dismissive labels to people, rather than dealing with honest arguments that run counter to your own. If I heard that many constitutional experts in 1861 didn't share my view of whether secession was constitutional or not, I'd want to find out what their arguments were and take them seriously. I wouldn't simply assume that they were liars or idiots. But that's just me.
Really? I have not noticed you citing "many constitutional experts in 1861" in support of your views.
Personally, I prefer to cite the terms under which the new Constitution was 'sold' to the people of the States - I'm not a 'bait & switch' kind of guy. "But that's just me."
If liberty's at risk, the thing to do is to speak directly to the present danger. Not to get lost in historical disputes that simply divide people of like minds about current issues.
You know, you just (accidentally, obviously) 'hit the nail on the head.' I'm a gun owner, a Lifer with the NRA, and a living, breathing part of America's "Gun Culture." Years ago, when I was a young man, I realized that, if the Second Amendment actually meant what it said, then the rest of the Constitution did, too. Reading the historical documentation from the early years of the Republic, I discovered - guess what? - that the Founders' agreed.
Wake up, sport. "[L]iberty's at risk," today, and people like you, who are willing to ignore the specific, written words of the Constitution, are part of the problem...
What we live in now is not a republic as the founders envisioned. Your hero Lincoln saw to that, as well as the progressives of the early 20th century. You scum are not worth the effort. Promise me if there is a next time, we are allowed to go in peace.
BJK: There are only a few of Jefferson's ideas I disagree with, and your quote is not one of those.
So, you agree with Mr. Jefferson?
"...[T]he [federal] government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each [State as a] party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."
If you agree that "each [State as a] party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress," then you also agree with me, and I have no idea what you are attempting to argue about...
;>)
But the Constitution is explicit & clear, that Congress will declare war, suppress insurrections, repel invasions, and respond to rebellion and "domestic violence."
None of which refers to the formal withdrawal of a State from the union, under the Constitution as it existed in 1860.
WIJG: "Under your idiotic argument, Congress could "define" our recent 'Tea Parties' to be either an "insurrection," or "invasion," have their sock puppet in the White House call out the US military to kill everyone present, and it would be 'constitutional.'"
BJK: Pure nonsense. An insurrection requires the use of unlawful force, especially against Federal forces. And that's exactly what the South did to dozens and dozens of Federal forts, arsenals, customs houses and ships. If today's "tea parties" also involved such use of unlawful force, the perpetrators would be arrested. Then if they violently resisted arrest, they'd also be subject to deadly force.
Actually, you asked us, in your Post 1528, if "perhaps you can locate for us quotes from Founders or anyone else of 1787 saying someone other than Congress can define just what exactly is an 'insurrection,' or 'invasion.'" Under your idiotic argument, only Congress "can define just what exactly is an 'insurrection,' or 'invasion.'" If your Post 1528 was correct, then Congress could define 'Tea Parties' to be either an "insurrection," or "invasion:" - no "use of unlawful force, especially against Federal forces" required. But then, maybe your Post 1528 was just the expression of another one of your many, irrational, mutually-contradictory opinions. In other words, a typical post for you - "pure nonsense."
WIJG: "This is simply a repeat of your second idiotic argument (assuming I have them numbered correctly), that 'the [federal] government WAS made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself'"
BJK: I said nothing of the sort, except in cases of a declaration of war, suppressing insurrection and repelling invasion -- all of which are specifically named in the Constitution.
As noted above, you (in your Post 1528) suggested that only Congress "can define just what exactly is an 'insurrection,' or 'invasion.'" Care to substantiate that statement with historical documentation, or court opinions? Of course not...
WIJG: "The Constitution also does not mention a perpetual union, because (according to your idiotic argument) it did not in any way contemplate it. Please be consistent - you can't have it both ways."
BJK: Nonsense. So far as I know there was no discussion in 1787 of anything resembling secession or "sun setting" or any other termination of the Constitution -- except through such ordinary, peaceful and lawful methods as ammendments and constitutional conventions.
"Nonsense?" That certainly applies to your irrational argument, presented in Post 1510, suggesting that "the Constitution does not mention secession because it did not in any way contemplate it." The same Constitution, under your argument, did not mention a "perpetual" union [in essence, the exact opposite of State secession] because it did not in any way contemplate it.
And congratulations - you just suggested that there WAS discussion in 1787 of something resembling secession or "sun setting" or any other termination of the Constitution -- through such ordinary, peaceful and lawful methods as [amendments] and constitutional conventions. Please provide the citation[s]. Because you can't, I suspect this is just another one of your many 'verbal diarrhea' posts...
So we have to assume that, except for these methods, the new contract of union was considered as "perpetual," as the old Articles of Confederation.
The term "perpetual" was applied, in writing, to the union formed under the specific terms of the Articles of Confederation. The Founders were well aware of the language, could easily have included it within the written terms of the new Constitution - and did not. You "assume" that the omitted language is still applicable, still a part of the Constitution. Tell us, sport: can Canada still join the union, by "acceding to [the Articles of Confederation], and adjoining in the measures of the United States," as detailed in Article XI? That clause was omitted from the Constitution - as was the "perpetual" union language - but according to your idiotic argument, the omission means nothing, and the omitted language is apparently still a part of the Constitution.
I find your "documentation" -- or rather your exegeses of it -- unconvincing.
I find your complete lack of historical documentation amusing...
;>)
I find your insults unpersuasive.
And I find your arguments to be juvenile, at best, and absolutely brain-dead, at worst (but still amusing ;>)...
If I remember correctly, the first serious discussions of secession came under President Jefferson, around 1804, as a result of his embargo of Northern ports... That's why you have to go back to the original discussions of 1787 to see how the Founders intended it.
Actually, I have cited Mr. Madison's Federalist No. 43 (for example) - we're still waiting for any historical documentation you might have stumbled across...
;>)
Seems obvious to me, the Founders intended any such questions to be dealt with legally and peacefully through such processes as amendments and constitutional conventions.
As noted above, you suggested that there WAS discussion in 1787 of something resembling secession or "sun setting" or any other termination of the Constitution -- through such ordinary, peaceful and lawful methods as [amendments] and constitutional conventions. I have already asked you to please provide the citation[s]. Because you are of "the Non-Sequitur school of thought" (see your Post 1510, if you've forgotten), I won't hold my breath waiting...
Finally, I note again how eager you are to insult me.
If your posts are irrational, it is hardly anyone's fault but your own. If you insist that your irrational opinions are of greater importance than documented, historical fact, then you should not be surprised by the response.
I don't think that speaks well of your arguments.
My arguments are consistent, both logically and historically. Yours are not...
EXACTLY right...
You insult my country, you call me scum for defending my country, and then you ask for a “pass”? Well, if you cowardly Lost Causers ever git up off the sofa and do something then I guess we’ll see, won’t we?
You do realize that you are agreeing with someone whose IQ is roughly equal to the interior temperature of a refrigerator, right?!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.