Posted on 01/23/2003 6:06:25 PM PST by one2many
Seward tried to play Lincoln, but Lincoln played Seward instead.
Seward had been the front runner for the presidential nomination in 1860. Lincoln was the dark horse and he wound up winning. Seward communicated with these commissioners on his own. If Lincoln knew about it -- I don't know.
But what is known is that, as I posted, Lincoln told the rebels exactly what he planned to do, and nothing in the record suggests he had any other plan. He put the onus of opening hostilities on the rebels and they followed the course of action most disastrous for themselves.
Walt
For what it is worth, I live in Pittsburgh, but am a great admirer of Lee and the bravado of the Confederate soldiers. Robert Lee, even recently, appears on postage stamps.
What seems to be happening is an effort by politically entrenched people (like the Jacksons and the reparations crowd) to use the parks to paint the CSA as Nazis.
The focus of the battlefields should be about the battles. Why else do they think people visit them?
As someone else said, the legacy of slavery is much better suited to a museum in DC.
I would hope even Walt would want to preserve the battlefields as battlefields. I used to like to drive to Gettysburg and bike around. The workers telling the events of Pickett's men charging fearlessly into a wall of gunfire was always riveting. I hope this will not change, but from what I have read, the 3 leftist professors decided this was "Southern Bias".
PC is a cancer upon our nation.
I'd agree:
George Washington to John Jay, 1786:
"Your sentiments that are affairs are rapidly drwaing to a crisis, accord with my own. What the event will be is also beyond the reach of my foresight. We have errors to correct. We have probably had too good an opinion of human nature in forming our confederation. Experience has taught us, that men will not adopt & carry into execution, measures the best calculated for their own good without a coercive power. I do not conceive we can exist long as a nation, without having lodged somewhere a power which will pervade the whole Union in as energetic a manner, as the authority of the different state governments extends over the several States. To be fearful of vesting Congress, constituted as that body is, with ample authorities for national purposes, appears to me the very climax of popular absurdity and madness."
Washington to John Jay, August 19, 1786
Walt
Walt
The Militia Act is part of the "coercive power" that Washington spoke of.
I've asked numerous times how his image got on the great seal of the so-called CSA.
You've never touched -that- qestion.
Walt
Normally I ignore your stupid and formulaic attempts to be insulting. But I have to remark that you, of all people, should avoid reference to "Beavis and Butthead" Because, if there is a Beavis and Butthead on this forum, it is you and Non-Sensical.
No, I'm calling -you- a liar, and a fool.
Walt
BTTT.
Give'm hell Walt!
Most of the stuff they post is so lame on its face, they don't really need to be called on it.
Walt
That is your answer? Am I supposed to take that seriously? What the hell does it mean?
"I've asked numerous times how his image got on the great seal of the so-called CSA."
"You've never touched -that- qestion[sic]."
No, I've never touched the question because as many times as you have posed it, it has never been, and is not now, relevant to the point at issue. I have no clue as to why you keep asking it. But as to how his image got on the great seal, I haven't the vaguest idea and I couldn't care less. I hope that settles the matter of Washington's image on the great seal of the CSA.
I am not a state, Walt.
And that would be a valid argument if the law stood as a fixed and uncompromisable standard above all else. But that is simply not the case. The Constitution supersedes the law, natural law supersedes the Constitution and so forth. Hence your conclusion does not stand.
It would be silly to think that it is as the Militia Act is a statement of statute, not a formal argument that leads to a conclusion.
In contrast you made an argument and claimed a conclusion from that argument. I pointed out that the conclusion you claimed does not logically follow from the premise you stated. Therefore your argument is a non-sequitur - it's conclusion is not arrived at by the premises you use, despite your assertion otherwise.
I think it would be pretty hard to match this for lame:
"The act requires that U.S. law operate in all the states. It is therefore a bar to unilateral state secession."
But you rose to the occasion, Wlat, when you defended that piece of nonsense with this ridiculous statement:
"The Militia Act is part of the "coercive power" that Washington spoke of."
Come now, Walt. Surely you don't mean to suggest that the only cost of a protectionist tariff, or even the majority of that cost, is felt in the government revenue collection numbers. Aside from being a fraudulent argument, such an assertion is economic idiocy.
The real cost of any protectionist tariff is felt in what it does to the price markets and consumption quantities in comparison to the pre-tariff condition. New tariff laws (kinda like the Morrill one) take away a huge segment of the consumer surplus and disperse it elsewhere. Part of that dispersement is transfered into the producer surplus (that means it goes to the select few beneficiaries in the protected industry). Another small part of it goes into the government as revenue, where it is spent with great losses in opportunity due to government's comparative inefficiency. The remainder is consumed in dead weight losses - it is lost to the economy as a whole, not to be recovered.
The net change of country's welfare following a protectionist tariff can be accordingly declared negative. Of the losses in consumer surplus caused by the tariff, only part is incompletely recovered by shifts to the producer and government. The remainder is lost meaning a net loss for the country itself, and that loss is hardest felt by those who (a) lose more of the benefits of having the previous consumer surplus to higher prices and (b) depend upon trade for their livlihoods. In the case of the Morrill tariff, that was the south. Northern industries benefitted from the partial transfer of consumer surplus they recieved. The south by comparison lost in prices and then again in declining trade, as they accounted for some 75% or so of the nation's exports in 1860.
Have we a personality split disorder within you now, Walt? It would certainly explain a good number of your eccentricities.
If this is indeed the case, let me be the first to encourage you at it. I anticipate what comes next.(snicker, snicker)
"DiLorenzo wants to destroy The Lincoln"
"Destroy it he does? But DiLorenzo is our friend."
"No! Destroy The Lincoln he wants! Destroy...our precious, he will!"
If I may weigh in, Walt, you're evading Aurelius' question to you by changing the subject. That is not a legitimate response. Answer his question and please explain exactly how your conclusion about secession is necessitated by your premise in the militia act. And just in case, simply declaring "therefore" before your conclusion about secession will not demonstrate a link between it and your premise.
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.