[hirn_man]

"But if the ultimate judgement on matters is to be determined by journalists, I hope future historians don't read the New York Times."

You're right there. Newspapers on both sides of an issue tended to extremes.

I think the only difference between today and past times in regards to newspapers is that newspapers used to be fairly above board in their bias.

At least thats what my inferior public education has lead me to believe.

[labard1]

Your comment about 19th century papers being proud to announce their party affiliations is absolutely accurate.

If you're going to be decent about things, then I owe you a civil explanation of why I reject your mother/child murder analogy to New England's effort at secession during the War of 1812.

In the case of your mother/child murder case, nothing in your mother's statements help construe the meaning of the murder statute. On the other hand New England's threat of secession during the War of 1812 came at a time many of the founding fathers were still alive, as were many people involved in the ratification of the Constitution in the various states. They knew what arguments had been made to get ratification. They had better insight into the intention of the framers than any subsequent group would ever have. And a number of them were active on behalf of secession.

Given that history, it seems highly selective to condemn Southern secession as illegal or morally indefensible. It's like the Dims accusing Schwarzeneger of groping after their defense of Clinton. It just doesn't ring true, even if one does not really condone groping.