Lincoln Statue Subjected to Unusually Undignified Vandalism

What is the problem here? Lincoln's views changed, as did his knowledge of what the country wanted. Reagan's views about the role of government changed over time. So did Truman's views about Blacks. So I presume, have mine and yours.

Also, bear in mind that you don't mix up the questions of slavery and racial inequality. Or indeed the question of the evil of slavery with the question of immediate abolition. Lincoln never favored slavery. He never felt that it was a good. Lincoln felt that the institution should be restricted to where it existed and hoped that eventually it would die out there. This hope was also that of many or most of the founders -- or at least, they did restrict slavery from the Northwest Territories, and they did hope that it would die out. On this it was the fire-eaters who betrayed the hopes of the "Old Republic."

Whether slavery was right or wrong was a subject of intense debate. Citing Lincoln quotes without citing Douglas, or Breckenridge, Davis, or Toombs or Stephens or any other political figures of the times, gives one a radically wrong impression of where he stood in the political and moral spectrum of the day.

Given that slavery was wrong, as Lincoln believed, what should the proper relationship between Whites and Blacks be? This was a separate question at the time, and it was to remain unresolved -- or answered in what we would regard as the wrong way -- for a century after Lincoln's death. It was also a question that Lincoln would be asked much more than his opponents, since they accepted or embraced the expansion of slavery, often considering it a moral good, and basing their views on an unquestioned belief in human inequality. Lincoln could not hide from such questions behind "property rights" or "states rights."

Utopian 21th century minds looking back on the past anachronistically might demand that one love and cherish everyone regardless of race or because of it. That was not an option in 19th century America. Indeed, it's hardly realistic today. There's something perverse about those who claim to stand on law and responsibility against sentimentality and emotionalism, that they condemn Lincoln precisely for not conforming to what our own 21st century sentimentality commands. They celebrate those whose hard-headedness led them to embrace and fight for slavery, and attack those who opposed it in a similarly hard-headed and pragmatic fashion.

I suppose the reason is that they suspect some kind of crown of moral virtue is at stake. Moral innocence is different from historical questions of causation and responsibility. But if you want to argue that Lincoln was not morally pure -- and who is? -- don't go on to pretend that Confederate leaders were. They embraced the belief in the inequality of the races with a passion, something that Lincoln with his faltering admissions can't quite be accused of doing and played all the politician's tricks that Lincoln is accused of playing. If a hard-headed, practical, un-Utopian approach on behalf of a good cause is condemned, are we then to embrace only evil causes? Deny this notional crown of virtue to Lincoln, if you like, but don't distort the circumstances of the times and the attitudes and actions of the other characters.

The argument is made that if you leave slavery out of the account the Confederates had the better case. Whether or not we can and should leave slavery out of the account, the secessionists certainly could not, and their passion or interest led them to take some very questionable steps. Lincoln is blamed because his side won. Had it not, we would be talking about the usurpations, unconstitutionality and tyranny of the other side. We would see it much more clearly and understand that it was not Lincoln who destroyed the "Old Republic." He would have overlooked the existence of slavery in the South to preserve the Union and the Old Republic. They destroyed that Union and Republic because they demanded the expansion of slavery.

Ending the expansion of slavery was a step in ending slavery. Abolishing slavery was a step on the road to abolishing legal distinctions based on race. Lincoln, for whatever faults he may have had, stood on that path. Others did not.

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other-though last, not least: the new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating question relating to our peculiar institutions-African slavery as it exists among us-the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation, of the lads of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the Constitution, was the prevailing idea at the time. The Constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly used against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it-when the "storm came and wind blew, it fell."

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition. This, our never Government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It is so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North who still cling to these errors with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind; from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is, forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the antislavery fanatics: their conclusions are right if their premises are. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights, with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just; but their premises being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the Northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery; that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in polities, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle -- a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of man. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds we should succeed, and that he and his associates in their crusade against our institutions would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was a impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as well as in physics and mechanics, I admitted, but told him it was he and those acting with him who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

-- Alexander Stephens

Why, then, shall we talk about natural rights? Who is to define them? Where is the judge that is to sit over the courts to try natural rights? What is the era at which you will determine the breadth, the length, and the depth of those called the rights of nature? Shall it be after the fall' when woman had been made subject, when the earth was covered with thorns, and man had to earn his bread in the sweat of his brow? Or shall it be when there was equality between the sexes, when he lived in the garden, when all his wants were supplied, and when thorns and thistles were unknown on the face of the earth? Shall it be after the flood, when, for the first sin committed after the waters had retired from the face of the earth, the doom of slavery was fixed upon the mongrel descendants of Ham? If it be after the flood, after those decrees, how idle is this prating about natural rights as though still containing all that had been forfeited, as being, in the present condition of man, above the obligations of the civil government?

-- Jefferson Davis

"In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strong for the former. The blacks are immeasureably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially, & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild & melting influence of Christianity, than the storms & tempests of fiery Controversy … While we see the Course of the final abolition of human Slavery is onward, & we give it all the aid of our prayers & all justified means in our power, we must leave the progress as well as the results in his hands who sees the end; who Chooses to work by slow influences; & with whom two thousand years are but a day."

-- Robert E. Lee

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the pominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is throughly identified with the institution of slavery --- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which consittuties by far the largest and most important portions of of the commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

-- "An Address: Setting Forth the Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of Mississippi From the Federal Union and the Ordinance of Secession," Mississippi Secession Convention, 1861

Yes, Non, I have read the site that provides some of that information. However, I think you have inserted some disinformation.

Your claims that Anderson ignored or violated orders are wrong.

"In a letter to Anderson dated 27 December 1860, Buchanan's Secretary of War John B. Floyd wrote, 'Intelligence has reached here this morning that you have abandoned Fort Moultrie, spiked your guns, burned the carriages, and gone to Fort Sumter.'

"It is not believed, because there is no order for any such movement."

In a meeting with Senators Jefferson Davis and R.M.T. Hunter, (the next day) Buchanan stated, "I call God to witness, you gentlemen, better than anybody, know that this is not only without but against my orders"

Three days after South Carolina declared (secession), the Secretary of War sent a cabinet directive to Anderson ordering him to 'exercise sound military discretion' and to avoid 'useless sacrifice' on the part of his command. In light of these instructions Anderson acted in the manner he thought best...

Which resulted in Buchanan failing to order him back, and the rebellion and resignation of some of his cabinet members.

Your post seems to contradict the instructions given by Major Buell and the cabinet instructions sent on Major Anderson on December 23rd. My information comes from "The Men of Secession and Civil War" by James L. Abrahamson. May I ask your source?

If such proof exists, you haven't shown it.

Read it and weep. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D039303691X/102-3422716-8340966

For an excerpt, here's Madison's letter describing the final document to Jefferson, who had been following it via Madison's letters about the debate.

James Madison Explains the Constitution to Thomas Jefferson

You will herewith receive the result of the Convention, which continued its session till the 17th of September. I take the liberty of making some observations on the subject, which will help to make up a letter, if they should answer no other purpose. It appeared to be the sincere and unanimous wish of the Convention to cherish and preserve the Union of the States. No proposition was made, no suggestion was thrown out, in favor of a partition of the Empire into two or more Confederacies. It was generally agreed that the objects of the Union could not be secured by any system founded on the principle of a confederation of Sovereign States. A voluntary observance of the federal law by all the members could never be hoped for. A compulsive one could evidently never be reduced to practice, and if it could, involved equal calamities to the innocent and guilty, the necessity of a military force, both obnoxious and dangerous, and, in general, a scene resembling much more a civil war than the administration of a regular Government.

Hence was embraced the alternative of a Government which, instead of operating on the States, should operate without their intervention on the individuals composing them; and hence the change in the principle and proportion of representation.

This ground-work being laid, the great objects which presented themselves were: 1. To unite a proper energy in the Executive, and a proper stability in the Legislative departments, with the essential characters of Republican Government. 2. To draw a line of demarkation which would give to the General Government every power requisite for general purposes, and leave to the States every power which might be most beneficially administered by them. 3. To provide for the different interests of different parts of the Union. 4. To adjust the clashing pretensions of the large and small States. Each of these objects was pregnant with difficulties. The whole of them together formed a task more difficult than can be well conceived by those who were not concerned in the execution of it. Adding to these considerations the natural diversity of human opinions on all new and complicated subjects, it is impossible to consider the degree of concord which ultimately prevailed as less than a miracle.

The first of these objects, as respects the Executive, was peculiarly embarrassing. On the question whether it should consist of a single person or a plurality of co-ordinate members, on the mode of appointment, on the duration in office, on the degree of power, on the re-eligibility, tedious and reiterated discussions took place. The plurality of co-ordinate members had finally but few advocates. Governor [of Virginia] Randolph was at the head of them. The modes of appointment proposed were various: as by the people at large, by electors chosen by the people, by the Executives of the States, by the Congress; some preferring a joint ballot of the two Houses; some, a separate concurrent ballot, allowing to each a negative on the other house; some, a nomination of several candidates by one House, out of whom a choice should be made by the other. Several other modifications were started. The expedient at length adopted seemed to give pretty general satisfaction to the members. As to the duration in office, a few would have preferred a tenure during good behaviour; a considerable number would have done so in case an easy and effectual removal by impeachment could be settled.

It was much agitated whether a long term, seven years for example, with a subsequent and perpetual ineligibility, or a short term, with a capacity to be re-elected, should be fixed. In favor of the first opinion were urged the danger of a gradual degeneracy of re-elections from time to time, into first a life and then hereditary tenure, and the favorable effect of an incapacity to be reappointed on the independent exercise of the Executive authority. On the other side it was contended that the prospect of necessary degradation would discourage the most dignified characters from aspiring to the office; would take away the principal motive to the faithful discharge of its duties--the hope of being rewarded with a reappointment; would stimulate ambition to violent efforts for holding over the Constitutional term; and instead of producing an independent administration and a firmer defense of the constitutional rights of the department, would render the officer more indifferent to the importance of a place which he would soon be obliged to quit forever, and more ready to yield to the encroachments of the Legislature, of which he might again be a member.

The questions concerning the degree of power turned chiefly on the appointment to offices, and the controul on the Legislature. An absolute appointment to all offices, to some offices, to no offices, formed the scale of opinions on the first point. On the second, some contended for an absolute negative, as the only possible mean of reducing to practice the theory of a free Government, which forbids a mixture of the Legislative and Executive powers. Others would be content with a revisionary power, to be overruled by three-fourths of both Houses. It was warmly urged that the judiciary department should be associated in the revision. The idea of some was, that a separate revision should be given to the two departments; that if either objected, two-thirds, if both, three-fourths, should be necessary to overrule.

In forming the Senate, the great anchor of the government, the questions, as they come within the first object, turned mostly on the mode of appointment, and the duration of it. The different modes proposed were: 1. By the House of Representatives. 2. By the Executive. 3. By electors chosen by the people for the purpose. 4. By the State Legislatures. On the point of duration, the propositions descended from good behaviour to four years, through the intermediate terms of nine, seven, six, and five years. The election of the other branch was first determined to be triennial, and afterwards reduced to biennial.

The second object, the due partition of power between the General and local Governments, was perhaps, of all, the most nice and difficult. A few contended for an entire abolition of the States; some, for indefinite power of Legislation in the Congress, with a negative on the laws of the States; some, for such a power without a negative; some, for a limited power of legislation, with such a negative; the majority, finally, for a limited power without the negative. The question with regard to the negative underwent repeated discussions, and was finally rejected by a bare majority. As I formerly intimated to you my opinion in favor of this ingredient, I will take this occasion of explaining myself on the subject. Such a check on the States appears to me necessary- 1. To prevent encroachments on the General authority. 2. To prevent instability and injustice in the legislation of the States.

1. Without such a check in the whole over the parts, our system involves the evil of imperia in imperio. If a complete supremacy somewhere is not necessary in every society, a controuling power at least is so, by which the general authority may be defended against encroachments of the subordinate authorities, and by which the latter may be restrained from encroachments on each other. If the supremacy of the British Parliament is not necessary, as has been contended, for the harmony of that Empire, it is evident, I think, that without the royal negative, or some equivalent controul, the unity of the system would be destroyed. The want of some such provision seems to have been mortal to the antient confederacies, and to be the disease of the modern. Of the Lycian confederacy little is known. That of the Amphictyons is well known to have been rendered of little use whilst it lasted, and, in the end, to have been destroyed by the predominance of the local over the federal authority. The same observation may be made, on the authority of Polybius, with regard to the Achaean League. The Helvetic System scarcely amounts to a confederacy, and is distinguished by too many peculiarities to be a ground of comparison.

The case of the United Netherlands is in point. The authority of a Statdholder, the influence of a standing Army, the common interest in the conquered possessions, the pressure of surrounding danger, the guarantee of foreign powers, are not sufficient to secure the authority and interest of the generality against the anti-federal tendency of the provincial sovereignties. The German Empire is another example. A Hereditary chief, with vast independent resources of wealth and power, a federal Diet, with ample parchment authority, a regular Judiciary establishment, the influence of the neighbourhood of great and formidable nations, have been found unable either to maintain the subordination of the members, or to prevent their mutual contests and encroachments. Still more to the purpose is our own experience, both during the war and since the peace. Encroachments of the States on the general authority, sacrifices of national to local interests, interferences of the measures of different States, form a great part of the history of our political system.

It may be said that the new Constitution is founded on different principles, and will have a different operation. I admit the difference to be material. It presents the aspect rather of a feudal system of republics, if such a phrase may be used, than of a Confederacy of independent States. And what has been the progress and event of the feudal Constitutions? In all of them a continual struggle between the head and the inferior members, until a final victory has been gained, in some instances by one, in others, by the other of them. In one respect, indeed, there is a remarkable variance between the two cases. In the feudal system, the sovereign, though limited, was independent; and having no particular sympathy of interests with the great Barons, his ambition had as full play as theirs in the mutual projects of usurpation. In the American Constitution, the general authority will be derived entirely from the subordinate authorities. The Senate will represent the States in their political capacity; the other House will represent the people of the States in their in their individual capacity. The former will be accountable to their constituents at moderate, the latter at short periods. The President also derives his appointment from the States, and is periodically accountable to them. This dependence of the General on the local authorities seems effectually to guard the latter against any dangerous encroachments of the former; whilst the latter, within their respective limits, will be continually sensible of the abridgement of their power, and be stimulated by ambition to resume the surrendered portion of it.

We find the representatives of Counties and Corporations in the Legislatures of the States much more disposed to sacrifice the aggregate interest, and even authority, to the local views of their constituents, than the latter to the former. I mean not by these remarks to insinuate that an esprit de corps will not exist in the National Government, or that opportunities may not occur of extending its jurisdiction in some points. I mean only that the danger of encroachments is much greater from the other side, and that the impossibility of dividing powers of legislation in such a manner as to be free from different constructions by different interests, or even from ambiguity in the judgement of the impartial, requires some such expedient as I contend for. Many illustrations might be given of this impossibility. How long has it taken to fix, and how imperfectly is yet fixed, the legislative power of corporations, though that power is subordinate in the most compleat manner? The line of distinction between the power of regulating trade and that of drawing revenue from it, which was once considered the barrier of our liberties, was found, on fair discussion, to be absolutely undefinable. No distinction seems to be more obvious than that between spiritual and temporal matters. Yet, wherever they have been made objects of Legislation, they have clashed and contended with each other, till one or the other has gained the supremacy. Even the boundaries between the Executive, Legislative, and judiciary powers, though in general so strongly marked in themselves, consist, in many instances, of mere shades of difference.

It may be said that the Judicial authority, under our new system, will keep the States within their proper limits, and supply the place of a negative on their laws. The answer is, that it is more convenient to prevent the passage of a law than to declare it void after it is passed; that this will be particularly the case where the law aggrieves individuals, who may be unable to support an appeal against a State to the Supreme Judiciary; that a State which would violate the Legislative rights of the Union would not be very ready to obey a Judicial decree in support of them; and that a recurrence to force, which, in the event of disobedience, would be necessary, is an evil which the new Constitution meant to exclude as far as possible.

2. A Constitutional negative on the laws of the States seems equally necessary to secure individuals against encroachments on their rights. The mutability of the laws of the States is found to be a serious evil. The injustice of them has been so frequent and so flagrant as to alarm the most stedfast friends of Republicanism. I am persuaded I do not err in saying that the evils issuing from these sources contributed more to that uneasiness which produced the Convention, and prepared the public mind for a general reform, than those which accrued to our national character and interest from the inadequacy of the Confederation to its immediate objects. A reform, therefore, which does not make provision for private rights, must be materially defective. The restraints against paper emissions and violations of contracts are not sufficient. Supposing them to be effectual as far as they go, they are short of the mark. Injustice may be effected by such an infinitude of legislative expedients, that where the disposition exists, it can only be controuled by some provision which reaches all cases whatsoever. The partial provision made supposes the disposition which will evade it.

It may be asked how private rights will be more secure under the Guardianship of the General Government than under the State Governments, since they are both founded on the republican principle which refers the ultimate decision to the will of the majority, and are distinguished rather by the extent within which they will operate, than by any material difference in their structure. A full discussion of this question would, if I mistake not, unfold the true principles of Republican Government, and prove, in contradiction to the concurrent opinions of the theoretical writers, that this form of Government, in order to effect its purposes, must operate not within a small but an extensive sphere. I will state some of the ideas which have occurred to me on this subject.

Those who contend for a simple democracy, or a pure republic, actuated by the sense of the majority, and operating within narrow limits, assume or suppose a case which is altogether fictitious. They found their reasoning on the idea that the people composing the Society enjoy not only an equality of political rights, but that they have all precisely the same interests and the same feelings in every respect. Were this in reality the case, their reasoning would be conclusive. The interest of the majority would be that of the minority also; the decisions could only turn on mere opinion concerning the good of the whole, of which the major voice would be the safest criterion; and within a small sphere, this voice could be most easily collected, and the public affairs most accurately managed.

We know, however, that no society ever did, or can, consist of so homogeneous a mass of Citizens. In the Savage state, indeed, an approach is made towards it, but in that state little or no Government is necessary. In all civilized societies, distinctions are various and unavoidable. A distinction of property results from that very protection which a free Government gives to unequal faculties of acquiring it. There will be rich and poor; creditors and debtors; a landed interest, a monied interest, a mercantile interest, a manufacturing interest. These classes may again be subdivided according to the different productions of different situations and soils, and according to the different branches of commerce and of manufactures. In addition to these natural distinctions, artificial ones will be founded on accidental differences in political, religious, or other opinions, or an attachment to the persons of leading individuals. However erroneous or ridiculous these grounds of dissention and faction may appear to the enlightened Statesman or the benevolent philosopher, the bulk of mankind, who are neither Statesmen nor philosophers, will continue to view them in a different light.

It remains, then, to be enquired, whether a majority having any common interest, or feeling any common passion, will find sufficient motives to restrain them from oppressing the minority. An individual is never allowed to be a judge, or even a witness, in his own cause. If two individuals are under to bias of interest or enmity against a third, the rights of the latter could never be safely referred to the majority of the three. Will two thousand individuals be less apt to oppress one thousand, or two hundred thousand one hundred thousand?

Three motives only can restrain in such cases: 1. A prudent regard to private or partial good, as essentially involved in the general and permanent good of the whole. This ought, no doubt, to be sufficient of itself. Experience, however, shews that it has little effect on individuals, and perhaps still less on a collection of individuals, and least of all on a majority with the public authority in their hands. If the former are ready to forget that honesty is the best policy, the last do more. They often proceed on the converse of the maxim, that whatever is politic is honest. 2. Respect for character. This motive is not found sufficient to restrain individuals from injustice, and loses its efficacy in proportion to the number which is to divide the pain or the blame. Besides, as it has reference to public opinion, which is that of the majority, the standard is fixed by those whose conduct is to be measured by it. 3. Religion. The inefficacy of this restraint on individuals is well known. The conduct of every popular assembly, acting on oath, the strongest of religious ties, shews that individuals join without remorse in acts against which their consciences would revolt, if proposed to them, separately, in their closets. When, indeed, Religion is kindled into enthusiasm, its force, like that of other passions, is increased by the sympathy of a multitude. But enthusiasm is only a temporary state of Religion, and whilst it lasts will hardly be seen with pleasure at the helm. Even in its coolest state, it has been much oftener a motive to oppression that a restraint from it.

If, then, there must be different interests and parties in society, and a majority, when united by a common interest or passion, cannot be restrained from oppressing the minority, what remedy can be found in a republican Government, where the majority must ultimately decide, but that of giving such an extent to its sphere, that no common interest or passion will be likely to unite a majority of the whole number in an unjust pursuit? In a large society, the people are broken into so many interests and parties, that a common sentiment is less likely to be felt, and the requisite concert less likely to be formed, by a majority of the whole. The same security seems requisite for the civil as for the religious rights of individuals. If the same sect form a majority, and have the power, other sects will be sure to be depressed. Divide et impera, the reprobated axiom of tyranny is, under certain qualifications, the only policy by which a republic can be administered on just principles.

It must be observed, however, that this doctrine can only hold within a sphere of a mean extent. As in too small a sphere oppressive combinations may be too easily formed against the weaker party, so in too extensive a one a defensive concert may be rendered too difficult against the oppression of those entrusted with the administration. The great desideratum in Government is so to modify the sovereignty as that it may be sufficiently neutral between different parts of the society to control one part from invading the rights of another, and at the same time sufficiently controlled itself from setting up an interest adverse to that of the entire society. In absolute monarchies, the prince may be tolerably neutral towards different classes of his subjects, but may sacrifice the happiness of all to his personal ambition or avarice. In small republics, the sovereign will is controlled from such a sacrifice of the entire society, but is not sufficiently neutral towards the parts composing it. In the extended Republic of the United States, the General Government would hold a pretty even balance between the parties of particular States, and be at the same time sufficiently restrained, by its dependence on the community, from betraying its general interests.

Begging pardon for this immoderate digression, I return to the third object above mentioned, the adjustments of the different interests of different parts of the continent. Some contended for an unlimited power over trade, including exports as well as imports, and over slave as well as other imports; some, for such a power, provided the concurrence of two-thirds of both Houses were required; some, for such a qualification of the power, with an exemption of exports and slaves; others, for an exemption of exports only. The result is seen in the Constitution. South Carolina and Georgia were inflexible on the point of the Slaves.

The remaining object created more embarrassment, and a greater alarm for the issue of the Convention, than all the rest put together. The little States insisted on retaining their equality in both branches, unless a compleat abolition of the State Governments should take place; and made an equality in the Senate a sine qua non. The large States, on the other hand, urged that as the new Government was to be drawn principally from the people immediately, and was to operate directly on them, not on the States; and, consequently, as the States would lose that importance which is now proportioned to the importance of their voluntary compliance with the requisitions of Congress, it was necessary that the representation in both Houses should be in proportion to their size. It ended in the compromise which you will see, but very much to the dissatisfaction of several members from the large States.

It will not escape you that three names only from Virginia are subscribed to the act. Mr. Wythe did not return after the death of his lady. Doctor McClurg left the Convention some time before the adjournment. The Governor [Randolph] and Col. Mason refused to be parties to it. Mr. Gerry was the only other member who refused. The objections of the Governor turn principally on the latitude of the general powers, and on the connection established between the President and the Senate. He wished that the plan should be proposed to the States, with liberty to them to suggest alterations, which should all be referred to another General Convention, to be incorporated into the plan as far as might be judged expedient. He was not inveterate in his opposition, and grounded his refusal to subscribe pretty much on his unwillingness to commit himself, so as not to be at liberty to be governed by further lights on the subject.

Col. Mason left Philadelphia in an exceeding ill humor indeed. A number of little circumstances, arising in part from the impatience which prevailed towards the close of the business, conspired to whet his acrimony. He returned to Virginia with a fixed disposition to prevent the adoption of the plan, if possible. He considers the want of a Bill of Rights as a fatal objection. His other objections are to the substitution of the Senate in place of an Executive Council, and to the powers vested in that body; to the powers of the Judiciary; to the vice president being made president of the Senate; to the smallness of the number of Representatives; to the restriction

on the States with regard to ex post facto laws; and most of all, probably, to the power of regulating trade by a majority only of each House. He has some other lesser objections. Being now under the necessity of justifying his refusal to sign, he will, of course, muster every possible one. His conduct has given great umbrage to the County of Fairfax, and particularly to the Town of Alexandria. He is already instructed to promote in the Assembly the calling a Convention, and will probably be either not deputed to the Convention, or be tied up by express instructions. He did not object in general to the powers vested in the National Government so much as the modification. In some respects he admitted that some further powers would have improved the system. He acknowledged, in particular, that a negative on the State laws and the appointment of the State Executives ought to be ingredients; but supposed that the public mind would not now bear them, and that experience would hereafter produce these amendments.

Excerpted from letter to Thomas Jefferson, October 24, 1787 (Madison 1865, I, pages 343 to 357)

Well, it's plain you are interested in disinformation.

NOW HEAR THIS! Walt, the same guy who willfully ignores any historical evidence that conflicts with his agenda driven revisionism of history, is now accusing me of disinformation! What next? Is he gonna lecture me on making personal insults while simultaneously indulging in them himself? ROTLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I caught you in some hyperbole

An admitted figure of speech in response to your own unadmitted yet present exaggeration of far greater proportion - is that the best you can come up with, Walt? ROTLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and some errors of fact

Such as?

and N-S also turned up some things that were clearly flat wrng.

Such as? his post alleging such turned out to be in error itself, as I corrected in my response to it.

And you've made a clear error of fact in this note and quite a wllful one, too.

What error of fact would that be? The quote? No. It's historical and real. Your quote? It's real too. My placing of them side by side? Consider yourself to have been taunted.

I -never- denied that Lincoln said any of these things.

No, you just flat out and intentionally ignored that he said them until I made you look at them by juxtaposing it with your own silly broken record statement. Sorry, but if that's what it's gonna take to get you to read those quotes, that's what I'll do.

What I said plainly--that it was not well documented in the record to say-- was that it was not correct to say that he only adopted an anti-slavery stance as a war measure. This weird perversion of yours

Your straw man is again noted, for I made no such assertion as has been pointed out to you repeatedly. I further invite you to demonstrate otherwise and note that simply being "anti-slavery" does NOT mean favoring action to emancipate the slaves.

won't get you much support, except among your small coterie of neo-confederate crazies.

Didn't you say something recently about people who make personal insults and their doing so based upon an inability to "marshal the facts"...hmmm....

You also said that I made some errors of fact. I challenged you to document one, and you come back with this lame stuff.

Only in your mind. Back in the real world, it is clear that I have time and time again documented your errors of fact: On the "starving garrison" at sumter, on the record of Robert E. Lee, on Lee's position over slavery (still waiting to see what crowd Lee was "paying lip service" to when he stated his position on slavery IN A PERSONAL LETTER!), on Jefferson's role in the constitutional convention, on Jefferson's correspondence with madison, on your historically incorrect presentation of Lincoln as a virtual secular saint of emancipation, on the beginning of the war, and on your intentional and repeated straw man misrepresentation of my position, among other things.

There is no doubt that Lincoln's attitudes about blacks changed over time.

Did they? And if so, how much? Cause (1) 1858 is pretty late in the life of a man who died only 7 years later and (2) Lincoln was still saying similar stuff about blacks 4 years later during the war.

You choose quotes from 1858 because Lincoln's later statements don't suit you.

Really? Do you have proof that this is why I chose the 1858 one? And if 1858 is not good enough for you, what about 1862, when Lincoln gave us this little gem of observation about blacks:

"You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence.... It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated." - Lincoln, speaking to a group of former slaves 8/1862

This is willful disinformation on your part.

How so? And once you are done explaining, prove it.

I know you've seen the many quotes of Lincoln's that show how he grew over time.

If he grew over time as much as you say, (1) why did one of the most bigotted statements on record come from him in 1858 towards the end of his life only 7 years before he died, and (2) why was he still stating pretty much the same thing in his comments in 1862 only 3 years before he died? Sure, I concede he did grow some in his opinions toward blacks, but only slightly and nowhere near the miraculous complete turnaround conversion you suggest.

Abraham Lincoln was a great and good man. He deserves every iota of the acolades and remembrances that have been showered over him through the years.

"Lincoln becomes the American solar myth, the chief butt of American credulity and sentimentality...the varnishers and veneerers have been busily converting Abe into a plaster saint...Worse, there is an obvious effort to pump all his human weaknesses out of him, and so leave him a mere moral apparition, a sort of amalgam of John Wesley and the Holy Ghost. What could be more absurd? Lincoln, in point of fact, was a practical politician of long experience and high talents, and by no means cursed with idealistic superstitions" - HL Mencken

Now, your last message, purported to show my statements, as anyone can see, if taken out of context

On the contrary. My last message served two purposes and two purposes alone:

1. To mock and taunt your idiocy, with full anticipation that the joke would be lost upon you.

2. To force your attention upon an historical quotation that otherwise you would have refused to acknowledge due to the fact that it contradicts your agenda-driven historical view.

Apparantly, I succeeded in both purposes!

Yes, but the government has always been dominated by the South and/or southern thinking

Is that so? In the beginning of the nation, yes. It was dominated by the south. Just look at the early presidents - Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Tyler, Polk, and Taylor were ALL southerners. Interestingly, many historians consider 6 of these presidents (Tyler the exception, plus Taylor having died early in his term) to have been among our nation's 10 greatest and most successful, Washington and Jefferson especially so.

But aside from this early string, the bulk of our presidents (not to mention the bulk of our mediocre presidents) have come from the north and northeast:

Lincoln, Grant, B Harrison, WH Harrison, Garfield, Harding, Adams, J Q Adams, Kennedy, Pierce, Ford, Arthur, Cleveland, Van Buren, T Roosevelt, F Roosevelt, Fillmore, Hayes, Taft, McKinley, Wilson, and Buchanan - all were from northern states that fought on the north's side.

Historically, the population has been in the northeast, which has also led to heavy representation their in congress.

particularly racism.

Racism has long been a blight upon all of the country. Nobody denies that. But to claim it is strictly a southern thing is nothing less than absurd. Historically, racism was known to have existed heavily in the north's free states prior to the war. Alexis de Tocqueville noticed this, and in fact characterized the north as being more segregated than the south even despite the slavery in the south. More recently in the last two decades, our nation's major racial troubles have been almost entirely northern plus california. They have centered around places like D.C, New York City, Cincinatti, Detroit, Chicago, and Los Angeles. You know. The places where the Jesse Jacksons, Louis Farrakahns, and Al Sharptons of this world stomp, the places where they have race riots every couple of years (or months). Your the one gauging Burnside from Lee's viewpoint.

I'm guaging Burnside from the historical viewpoint that (a) he lost the battle big time and (b) he directly caused the literal mowing down of 10,000 of his men by marching them into a virtually impregnable confederate line along a heavily defended geographic stronghold.

Is it you really think Burnside walked the Confederate positions in the morning?

No, it's that I know Burnside to have done what the outdated books told him to do, in charging his men virtually unsheilded straight into confederate fire. That's why 10,000 of them were mowed down, with not one even coming within 100 feet of the fence in front of the hill they were trying to take.

I won't go into the military details because I don't have time to waste on you now

Seeing as you spend your days arguing on nothing but civil war threads here on FR, I don't see why you can't waste any more time than you already have.

but I recommend Colonel T. N. Dupuy's QJM approach to the analysis of these battles.

In return, I recommend an actual visit to the Fredericksburg battlefield itself, from which point you can see exactly what Burnside's blunder was.

In particular consider the kill ratios, and don't forget that the Confederate numbers are derived largely from estimates.

Sure they are. I already noted that much in my earlier post to another poster regarding war casualties. In addition, I noted that one of the ways used to estimate those casualties especially near the end of the war involved simply presuming the "missing" counts to have been killed.

The truth of the matter is that the Confederates seldom had enough paper to keep them, nor did they have that many literate sergeants to take the counts.

And in noting that much, you only give more evidence of the truth in my assertion that the north won the war on its replenishable population and resources facing limited population and resources on the southern side.

McClellen of course was one of the very worst battle commanders in all of history.

See. I knew you could take sides within the north =)

You have a real stupid attitude.

Compared to yours, which is basically "I am right and I don't care what history or any of you say"? I do not call you stupid, so this is not a personal attack, rather a constructive criticism.

Sure. If you say so.

Your clear lack of insight and knowledge of the facts hampers your judgement tremendously.

...that coming straight from the guy who was so oblivious to the history of the constitutional convention that he had not a clue of Jefferson's role through his correspondence with Madison. Also the guy who willfully ignores historical facts that he does not want to see or read. Also the guy who subscribes to the myth of the starving sumter garrison. Also the guy who cannot fairly win a debate on his own merits and therefore resorts to the repeated use of straw men to mischaracterize and attack his opponent's arguments. Etc. Etc. Etc. Yeah. And you say I lack knowledge of the facts. ROTFLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I recommend you read the source material most of the writers of the books you read never paid enough attention too.

You know, I could just as easily say the same about you, and do so more appropriately, as it is you who has the clear problem with willfully ignoring the source material that you do not want to read due to the fact that it contradicts your agenda-driven viewpoint.

I am of course referring to the Congressional Records of both governments as well as the combined OR's of both sides.

Where do ya think I found the Corwin amendment Mr. Lincoln so enthusiastically endorsed? If you focused on them instead of all the second and third hand books-for-profit

Second and third hand books-for-profit? What, may I ask, are you talking about? I do not recall citing any third hand books anywhere during the course of this debate. Most of my facts have been direct quoted citations from the sources themselves. You on the other hand have relied almost ENTIRELY on quoting second and third hand sources in their characterizations of Lincoln, plus a small number of oft-repeated quotes from Lincoln himself that do nothing more than demonstrate that he had varied and mixed positions on the issues they refer to. Accordingly, I think it is only accurate to note that it appears to be you, not me, who is engaging in exactly what you describe above, Walt. Get yourself a mirror, Walt, as you sorely need it to practice your above-posted ranting before!

you wouldn't be such a victim of your cartoonish and highly romaticized imagination.

Get this, everybody! Walt, the guy who thinks of Lincoln as the secular saint of emancipation and shouts down anybody who even remotely suggests Lincoln to be anything less, is accusing me of having the "romanticized" and "cartoonish" viewpoint! Talk about irony! ROTFLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!

Perhaps too some day you would gain enough knowledge of simple facts of the world to recognize who you are talking too

Oh please! Keep going! You are killing me with laughter, Walt! And recognize who I am talking too? Sorry Walt, but I recognize you all too well. You are a hypocritical one trick pony who bases his entire presentation of history around a single agenda of smearing anything southern and deifying anything northern. No Walt, that is not an insult nor is it constructive criticism of you. It is a simple statement of fact as to what you are. As for me, you do not even know me seeing as you have only encountered me briefly over the last week (and yes, I have watched you on FR long before posting to you, seeing as you are easy to find and only post in one type of thread - civil war. I only decided recently to speak up and say something about the bilge that you post). So once again, Walt, take your own advice before that mirror, cause you need it more than I do.

not that it matters at all in this case other than you betray your traditional residual inheritance of ignorant bigotry.

Ooh! Bigot! What next, Walt? Let me guess. Are you gonna call me a "racist" next? How about "homophobe"? Or some other name out of your label-oriented democrat-style bag of tricks?

By all means, keep it up though, cause you entertain me with laughter thoroughly. You may be a historically ignorant one trick pony who is closed to anything factual that he does not want to hear, you may be a flaming hypocrite who projects his own problems onto other persons whom he does not even know, but above all, Walt, you are a riot to watch as you twist, turn, and squirm your way around from debate to debate, all the while making the democrat party's logo out of yourself on a regular basis.

Oops! Please accept my apologies as I mistakenly thought you to be Walt in responding to the above post. I apologize to Walt as well for any confusion. I apologize for any references made towards walt, but nevertheless maintain many of them to apply to you as well. Once again, sorry for the mistaken identity.

In addition to the above, please let me note that it is my firm belief that you are uninterested in carrying out a fact based debate over any of the subjects of this thread. This is evident in your action of completely neglecting to even consider any of the specifics regarding Fredericksburg that I offered in correction to your assertions about what took place there. It is evident in your refusal to post any substantiation to your challenge upon the numbers I posted regarding civil war casualties. And it is evident in your crude personal attacks against me (no, randomly accusing other people of "bigotry" is not "Constructive Criticism").

If you wish to discuss the specifics of the civil war, test your sources against mine, test your knowledge against mine, or anything similar, I will gladly participate. But if you are intent on perpetuating nothing more than a personal pissing match in which you randomly accuse others of bigotry and question their knowledge without even knowing them and without offering one single shred of evidence demonstrating errors in that knowledge, I do not intend to permit you participation any further. The choice is up to you now. Choose wisely.

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so." (From President Abraham Lincoln's first inaugural address)

Walt, this is the report of a bill out of the SC Senate. This is not an act of South Carolina. If you have the act, show us the documentation.

You guys are just like the Black Knight in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail."

"You've got no bloody legs!"

"Ah, it's just a scratch!"

COMMITTEE ON FEDERAL RELATIONS In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836 The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:

Resolved

That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.

Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.

Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:

T. W. GLOVER, C. H. R.

IN SENATE, December 21st, 1836

Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:

JACOB WARLY, C. S.

The secessionists were no better than common thieves.

Walt

Which resulted in Buchanan failing to order him back, and the rebellion and resignation of some of his cabinet members.

Which ones? And if all this is against orders then why did Buchanan try to reinforce and resupply Sumter a month later?

"On November 9, 1860 the United States Flag was taken down at all the batteries and the South Carolina state flag was raised. After seeing this, Maj. Anderson sent word to Washington asking for additional troops and started his men erecting defenses. His hopes of additional men were dashed as the Star Of The West, carrying two hundred men, was fired upon by both the battery on Morris Island and Fort Moultrie, striking it twice."
(MY comment) Now, Walt, your 10 second research, which is characteristic of your efforts to get at the truth shown in most of your opinions, is interesting. Would you please give your soruces for this quote.
(Your comment) I didnt make this quote, so I have no idea what you are talking about. I am way too lazy to look it up, but seems like the SC secession was agreed to on December 6, 1860.
Walt
275 posted on 12/19/01 11:29 PM Eastern by WhiskeyPapa
------------------------------------------
Well, Walt, looks like it was your comment after all. So, let's have the source, because it will prove that Anderson's improvements were occuring in November, and were stopped by the treaty of December 6, 1860. This makes Anderson aware of the treaty, and his move to Ft. Sumter illegal.
Or do you just not want to make Abner Doubleday a liar, and Lincoln a terrorist.

I stand corrected. I did post this. I'd forgotten this part; it wasn't integral to whatever point I was making. I got it from this URL:

http://meme.essortment.com/civilwarforts_rlfa.htm

Walt

BTW, have you seen this: "No Gettysburg - An Alternative History."

Thanks for the link. I think that guy has way too much time on his hands.

Re: your #420

Evidence of illegal moves, my original contention, from the words of people of the time.

You seem to have difficulty understanding that not all "duplicity" or "equivocation" is necessarily illegal. (Not that I'm agreeing any such actions actually took place.)

Illegal is a word that means in violation of a specific law. Please point out the specific Federal Law that Major Anderson violated by moving his troops to Sumter.

Also, Mr. Lincoln was inaugurated during the period under discussion. I think you mixed up references to actions of Buchanan and Lincoln in the post.

Your vaunted ego is a tad overblown here.

Vaunted ego? Curious. I was simply trying to state the facts of the argument. There's nothing egotist about that. You on the other hand, seeing as you frolic about this forum informing other persons unknown to you by anything other than their screen name of their "ingorance" and "need for a library" as you pretend to be some sort of smug intellectual whose shoes you do not fill very well in actuality, are quite the egotist.

From the top of the list down: Lincoln was born in Kentucky, and his political views were far closer to John Bell and the Constitutional Union Party than to the Northeast and the Republicans.

Lincoln lived in Illinois. Illinois fought on the northern side. Kentucky also remained there. That makes Lincoln a northerner. Perhaps moderate compared to the deep north's radicals, but nevertheless a northerner who fully supported and led the northern cause. That makes one northerner.

Grant's wife was southern,

And so was John C. Fremont for that matter. But Grant himself was a northerner who resided in the northern state of Illinois. That makes two northerners.

and Grant spent a good bit of his time either in the South or in those states with a large number of southern expatriots.

Sure he did, and if I remember correctly, he picked up a slave or two while he was down there. Nevertheless he was still a northerner by residence and by cause.

Kennedy was of course a solid Northern Democrat, long the champion cohorts of the Southern Democrats, always willing to sell out principle for cash. He would have stayed with the Southern Dems if only they hadn't left him.

That's nice and all, but irrelevant to this conversation, the purpose of which is determining where each of the said presidents came from. Kennedy was a northerner. Make that three.

Pierce, who is in the Bush ancestry, was profoundly pro-southern, and it was said of him by Douglas once he was in office that 'now no one is safe.' You can't get any more Ashcroft than that.

Pro-Southern indeed, but nevertheless a northern president from the northern state of New Hampshire. The count is up to four.

Cleveland was a democrat, and the man who first brought southern traitors back into his administration.

That's nice and all, but again irrelevant to the purpose of determining from what region of the country various presidents came. Cleveland was a northerner. That's five.

T Roosevelt was a vicious lily white, his mother's side totally un-recontstructed.

New York state. That's six.

Taft was so solidly into the Southern Demorat machine that it undid him.

Ohio is in the north. That's seven.

Not to mention that fact that in his day the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS was a man who spent the evenings of his youth out running with the KKK.

Appointed by a Democrat, of course, just as a Democrat would appoint the court's other famous Klansman a few years later, that being new-dealer senator Hugo Black.

Wilson of course was a Democrat, Virginia born and South Carolina raised.

...who ran for president out of New Jersey. That's eight.

FDR was the greatest admirer if Wilson and took an oath in his youth to fulfill Wilson's goal of replacing the Republic with something else, ie: the League of Nations recreated at FDR's direction as the UN.

That's nice, but again irrelevant. FDR was as New York as they come. That makes nine northerners.

Buchanan of course was the pro-southern pennsylvanian who was perfectly willing to sent the pro southern/pro slave posse comitatus into free states to rig elections and defeat freedom.

Pennsylavia makes 10.

Damn, there's nothing more southern than a stuffed ballot box anyday.

Except for a northern stuffed ballot box chicago style.

You didn't mention Missouri Truman

Considering that I was posting from memory, I think I did pretty good. I also seem to have forgotten Coolidge (#11), who, when added to Missouri, which technically remained northern by force, makes for a total of 12 presidents from yankee states in that list.

Quaker boy Nixon who had no qualms about undermining the law like any good southern boy would have - al old Buck

Only problem being that Nixon was not a southerner but a mix between northerner and westerner. Up that total to 13

LBJ the illicit interventionist, the other great southern tradition as well as the real founder of the modern day equivalentcy of taking care of the little brown brothers.

Indeed he was, and LBJ was a left wing idiot who won his senate election as a liberal over a conservative candidate by stuffing the ballot box good ole fashioned democrat style. Politically, he has about as much in common with South today as does Ted Kennedy, so what's your point.

Peanut Jimmie, more in the mold of Alexander Stephens

Lester Maddox to be more specific. Politically, he resembled the left wing northeast far more than he did the south, which helped boot him from office in 1980.

Pro southern Reagan

God bless him!

the pierce descendents of the Bush family

Texas proud!

classic interventionists, and of course silver tongued devil clinton of Arkansas.

Who now, ironically, resides in the heart of left wing yankeeland harlem, the deepest of the deep north you can get! But as far as I am concerned, they can have him. He represents them politically better than the south anyway.

That's what is so boring about southerners. The endless denial of simple truth.

On the flip side, you yourself are the prime example of what is so repulsive about yankees. The arrogant (and blind) belief that everything they themselves believe, assert, or live by is undeniable truth, whereas anything else to them is just plain wrong regardless of its intrinsic merits. I am not ashamed to admit that I find your ilk rude, condescending, arrogant, obnoxious and generally unpleasant to be around. What you percieve in your own mind to be a demonstration of some sort of "intellect" (and yes, I use that term hesitantly as you have flagrantly demonstrated yourself to lack even basic knowledge and rationality in areas where you are convinced in your own mind that you posess it) has taken a true toll on your social skills and ability to rationally interact with other persons.

As I noted earlier, I came here to rationally discuss and debate a topic. You on the other hand came here to spew sh*t. I do not intend to indulge myself in your hobby as I have found it only makes both of us dirty and leaves everything in the area stinking of...well...sh*t. But since you have made it clear that you want to indulge in sh*t flinging, I have decided that it is much more entertaining on my end of the situation observe and laugh at you making a stinky mess of yourself from a safe, clean distance.

The above is yours and it is absolute garbage, like everything else you have delivered unto us.

Please refer to post 438.

Try harder.

My resources are too important to waste "trying" in a discussion with an inherently irrational, bitterly arrogant, and willfully ignorant person such as yourself. If you are displeased by my reluctance to converse with you in any greater detail, you have only your own attitude to blame.

Learn something.

Already have. Unfortunately it is increasingly clear to me that to expect the same from those opposite of me in this discussion is an unreasonable and absurd proposition. But I can live with that, as you have only yourself to blame for your current position.