absolutely true, Jack.....the North was no more accepting of blacks than the South....don't fool yourself. They didn't want blacks in the North at all. The South needed the slaves for business, the NOrth didn't but it is very naive to think that the South was made of bigots and the North of Oprah's.
--On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Jack Weiss <drjackpweiss@gmail.com> wrote:
I remember my high school history teacher, who was very smart, saying that before the War of Northern Aggression, the US was referred to as "These" united states, whereas, after the war, the US was called THE United States. The implication was that before the war, we were a group of individual states, but after the war, we became one country, not a group of states. As Guy said, Lee was opposed to the war and was even asked to be commander of the Union forces, by Lincoln, but he was a Virginian first, not an American, and that's how most people saw themselves back then, as citizens of their state before being a citizen of the country.JackFrom: Guy Moorman <gmoor@windstream.net>
Reply-To: <gmoor@windstream.net>
Date: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 8:20 AM
To: 'Bob Perkins' <turkeysturkeys@gmail.com>
Cc: "'Dean V. Hutto'" <dean@drhutto.com>, 'Bruce Finnigan' <finniganbruce@yahoo.com>, 'ACE' <ACEsthetics@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: [ACEsthetics] Larry Ellison on NSA and privacy. I totally agree with his angle.--The problem is, Bob, all of this is nice and the alternatives are more palatable but the simple fact is the South wanted the war. Slavery was an abomination. The rest of the industrialized world had banned it. Had it remained for an undetermined time in two nations we would most likely be a hundred years behind where were are now. Slaves had already started to flee north in great numbers and England had started to stop slavers, as had…ironically…France, and turn them back to Africa, where the slaves were sold to North Africans. Invention of the cotton gin would have produced a need for at least twice the cotton and the South had built no infrastructure to pick it other than slaves, whose numbers were dwindling. As Bell Wiley said in History of the South at Emory, the South very likely would have had to invade the North to take the industrial knowledge and plants away and bring much of it South because slavery was dead.
Bell thought the war was inevitable for the simple reason there was a North and a South which should not have happened after were broke from England. As for Canada, we could not afford Canada after we booted England. We barely could afford ourselves. Would they have been better had they been part of the US…don't know but I do know very little separates us now for most of Canada. When we defeated England we were broke with no way to raise revenue so Washington decided to tax whiskey made in Pennsylvania but he had to raise an army larger than the one that defeated England to put down the Whiskey Rebellion. He had no way to pay the troops so they were pain in script/promissory notes which were actually worthless.
899k lives were lost in that war but you are counting civilians who starved and died from disease. More troops died from disease than the war. It was a horrible war from which warfare changed forever. Visit Shiloh or Gettysburg and the gravity of that war hits you. But it was necessary to unify the states and Lincoln knew this as did Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy and fought hard for the presidency. Had he won, as few know, he would have sued for peace quickly. More people died waiting to fight that died fighting.
I can see all the alternatives but history tells us what happened and why. We can always second guess but the South was going to have to find a way to get more slaves or go industrial as the North was because slaves were fleeing in massive numbers and the North was not returning them as they were supposed to by law. That alone was cause for war in the South.
We look at this a purely American war when in reality it may have been the first real World War. England and France had a huge part in meddling to start the conflict. They wanted Southern Cotton, even though abolition was massive in Great Britain. At the same time they hated the massive industrial growth in the North which was overtaking all in Europe. A war in the US with a split country as the outcome would have been advantageous to all of Europe. But because of Lincoln's refusal to compromise on two nations Europe lost and ended up with a destitute South and a massive industrial North.
Yea, it was a horrible War that Lincoln pushed to the limit but at a huge personal cost. But he believed in a union of states undivided and in the end he was right. The cost was hardly palatal to anyone but the result was about as good as you could get. He produced the most powerful nation in the World then and probably now. Guy
Guy W. Moorman, Jr., D.D.S.
The Swamp
Douglas, GA 31533
This email message and any attached files are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) named above. This communication may contain material protected by patient rights, work product, or other privileges. If you are not an intended recipient, you have received this communication in error and any review, use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, copying, or other distribution of this email message and any attached files is strictly prohibited. If you have received the confidential message in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply email message and permanently delete the original message.
From: bperkinsdds@gmail.com [mailto:bperkinsdds@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Bob Perkins
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2013 7:31 PM
To: Guy Moorman
Cc: Dean V. Hutto; Bruce Finnigan; ACE
Subject: Re: [ACEsthetics] Larry Ellison on NSA and privacy. I totally agree with his angle.
"Our government is not to be maintained or our Union preserved by invasions of the rights and powers of the several States....it's true strength consists in leaving individuals and States as much as possible to themselves....; not in binding the States more closely to the center." - Andrew Jackson
"This country would have been not nearly as powerful financially and militarily had not Lincoln preserved the Union" - GuyTo the 800,000 people who died and to those countless lives that were destroyed, that point was lost on them.
and if that was the goal of the Founding Fathers, to make the United States as financially powerful and Militarily strong as possible we might have written the Constitution that way. They didn't because the Founding Fathers didn't agree with that reasoning. Would Canada be stronger financially if they had been forced to be a part of the United States?
Why not then invade Canada and make them part of the United States, after all, we would be more powerful? (in what ways and at what cost?) Have we ever fought a single war without Canada and the British? Did our secession from England destroy our diplomacy such that they are not our most loyal allies? We don't have to be a part of England (or Canada) to align with them on issues of common ground, like democracy and soveriegnty, etc..When you are so incredibly removed from the horror 150 years later it is easy to give quaint reasoning to the very questionable outcome.
If the British had won the war then we could have been more centralized; one big happy family. Let's just make the whole continent under one rule and have a monolithic way of governing. A one size fits all. Let's have a national food we all eat and such and eliminate all the things that distinguish the unique and individualized way the framers envisioned it. They didn't want a Soviet Union because they had already experienced the strong arm of the British monarchy.Here is another example of Lincoln's profound diplomatic skills and ability to stop things before they turned into all out war:
Jefferson Davis appointed a number of peace commissioners, in conformity with a resolution of the Confederate Congress, whose mission was to travel to Washington D.C. in March of1861, before the attack on Fort Sumter, and offer to pay for any Federal property on Southern soil as well as the Southern portion of the national debt. Lincoln refused to even see them or acknowledge their existence. Napolean III of France offered to mediate the dispute but was also turned away by Abe, who refused to meet with him.
What a great statesman Lincoln was!!!...sounds like my way or the highway, he would be called a dictator by today's standards.
Guy- you say you are "one southerner who is glad that Lincoln won the war". How could you say that if you have NO idea what the alternatives were? Here are some possible alternatives:
Union preserved (Constitution honored as written) No lives lost (slavery ended via buying the slaves and offering a way for the South to have compensation for being a less Industrialized, more labor based part of the country.
Two Nations (one North and one South) No lives lost (Constitution honored as written) Slavery maintained for an undetermined time longer (no 50,000 slaves killed, the same number of Americans killed in a 9 year war in Vietnam)
Union preserved through Intense force (800,000 lives lost, 50,000 slaves) total destruction of life and property in the South (Constitution compromised, U.S. Government centralized and state's rights compromised)
We fought for Independence from England for individual freedoms, did we not? We wanted the choice of living in a state like Virginia (for the way they governed) or New York (for the way they governed), etc.. We valued choices and representation, the choices and representation that were lacking in England and the later Soviet Union.
The Constitution did not give Lincoln most of the powers he seized. He turned it into a government of Lincoln and not laws.
"The War...has tended, more than any other even in the history of the country to militate against the Jeffersonian idea, that "the best government is that which governs least" - Illinois Governor Richard Yates, January 2, 1865
Lincoln stated over and over that he had no intention to threaten southern slavery, and even if he did, it would be unconstitutional to do so. But when it came to tariffs, Lincoln promised a military invasion of any state that failed to collect its share of tariff revenues. The Republican Party had just doubled the rate of federal taxation and Lincoln was saying to the South that if they refused to pay this increased rate of taxation they would face an invasion by a federal army. This was another strong rationale for secession by the South.
Lincoln was a Hamiltonian....Jefferson and Washington and virtually all the other Founding Fathers (who fought against Federalism) would have detested Lincoln.
Reagan would have detested Lincoln (if he knew anything about Lincoln that he didn't learn from the Disneyland exhibit). Bill O'Reilly would not fancy Lincoln at all, nor would Rush, or anyone who despises big, centralized, overbearing government.
I challenge you guys to read up on what kind of governing style Lincoln employed. It was taxation without representation all over again for the South......
We love to teach our children a very managed, symbolic, naive notion of what the Civil War was about and who Lincoln actually was. It's like what the Japanese teach their children about Pearl Harbor and WWII.
On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 5:42 AM, Guy Moorman <gmoor@windstream.net> wrote:
Dean, have you forgotten your history. The South was a standing militia already and the North had almost no army. The South started the way by attacking a Federal Fort…Sumter remember. The Southern army was not too damned puny and invaded the North several times. Jefferson Davis turned the full force of the Confederate forces against the standing legal Federal Government. It was the most horrible war that this country has known and it was about state's rights and certainly slavery. Ironically the states retained most of their rights but the union was preserved. This country would have been not nearly as powerful financially and militarily had not Lincoln preserved the Union. I am one Southerner who is glad we had Lincoln as president and that the North won that war. Even Robert E. Lee opposed the war but was a Virginian so he fought for the South in a war he did not start nor want.
Guy W. Moorman, Jr., D.D.S.
The Swamp
Douglas, GA 31533
This email message and any attached files are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) named above. This communication may contain material protected by patient rights, work product, or other privileges. If you are not an intended recipient, you have received this communication in error and any review, use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, copying, or other distribution of this email message and any attached files is strictly prohibited. If you have received the confidential message in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply email message and permanently delete the original message.
From: Dean V. Hutto [mailto:dean@drhutto.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2013 12:04 PM
To: turkeysturkeys@gmail.com; 'Bruce Finnigan'
Cc: gmoor@windstream.net; 'ACE'
Subject: RE: [ACEsthetics] Larry Ellison on NSA and privacy. I totally agree with his angle.
Bob,
Since Lincoln turned the full force of the U.S. military on the south, is it possible it could happen again?
And BTW. I don't think Obama will try it.
But it IS possible if we keep our eyes and ears closed!
Dean V. Hutto, D.D.S.
Aesthetic Family Dentistry
Phone: (281) 422-8248
Fax: (281) 428-8084
From: acesthetics@googlegroups.com [mailto:acesthetics@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bob Perkins
Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2013 10:57 AM
To: Bruce Finnigan
Cc: gmoor@windstream.net; ACE
Subject: Re: [ACEsthetics] Larry Ellison on NSA and privacy. I totally agree with his angle.
Bruce-
I watched the "Lionel" video. I like the guy. I am not disputing purchases of ammo, etc.. I just think that coming to the conclusion that Obama has some sinister plot to take over the country is as credible as believing that Bush staged 9/11.
Show me anywhere where Obama comes off as a maniacal, sinister, "take over the country with force" dictator. We have known this guy for 5 years as Pres and many others as legislature. This guy loves democracy more than a Reagan (iran contra) Nixon (tried to rig his re-election), the Republicans now who try to suppress the vote or create ridiculously long lines to discourage low incomers from voting.It is a grand leap to suggest that because the DHS is buying ammo that means that Obama is plotting to impose martial law and take over the country militarily.
But, this is why the framers of the Constitution didn't like centralized government very much anyways. They were sick of the Monarchy thing in England they built the Constitution on strong states rights and not a Federalized vice grip.
It was Lincoln who changed the way the country works forever when the individual sovereignty of the state's was trampled on in order to give one man (The President) the power to wage war and slaughter half of it's own citizens. He turned the U.S. military on it's own citizens....for 5 years with malice and hostility. He imposed it on everyone and he repeatedly violated the Constitution to help him carry this out. Jefferson and the other framers of the Constitution would have called Lincoln a tyrant, a dictator, and the kind of person (like the King)that they had rebelled against in England (though the King never authorized the murder of 800,000 of it's citizens). When Saddam Hussein does that to his people we think he is guilty of war crimes. When Stalin does it we think he is guilty of war crimes, but Lincoln, with his gentle beard and articulate manner, is seen very differently for some reason. He is only associated with freeing black slaves. He could care less about slaves and he is on record as saying as such, (dozens of times). He wanted to give the Presidency the power over Constitutionally granted state's rights.
O.K., sorry for the preaching.
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 7:50 AM, Bruce Finnigan <finniganbruce@yahoo.com> wrote:
Guy,
It was published by NBC News and the US News and World Report, neither of which can remotely be considered a right-wing outlet. What is so illegitimate about these outlets? Are they now suspect because they report news that make the left and the Dems uncomfortable? Have you bothered to read the links I provided before you commented? Has Bob or Jack? I doubt it or they wouldn't be so flippant, or insulting in Bob's case, in their responses. If this story is so preposterous as Bob seems to think, then why is this being investigated by the Government Accounting Office? If Congress knew so much about this as Bob claims, then why have they asked the DHS to brief them on these purchases?
Watch the video at the end which was played on WPIX, a local TV channel in the NY tri-state area. They realize something stinks here, besides Bob's snarky comments, and it has risen to the point where a mainstream media outlet speaks about it.
Do yourself a favor and at least read the stories.
Bruce
From: Guy Moorman <gmoor@windstream.net>
To: turkeysturkeys@gmail.com; 'Bruce Finnigan' <finniganbruce@yahoo.com>
Cc: 'ACE' <ACEsthetics@googlegroups.com>Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2013 7:46 AM
Subject: RE: [ACEsthetics] Larry Ellison on NSA and privacy. I totally agree with his angle.
Great reply, Bob, and I fear my friend Bruce is spending too much time watching Fox news and listening to what I call entertainment radio.
Guy W. Moorman, Jr., D.D.S.
The Swamp
Douglas, GA 31533
This email message and any attached files are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) named above. This communication may contain material protected by patient rights, work product, or other privileges. If you are not an intended recipient, you have received this communication in error and any review, use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, copying, or other distribution of this email message and any attached files is strictly prohibited. If you have received the confidential message in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply email message and permanently delete the original message.
From: acesthetics@googlegroups.com [mailto:acesthetics@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bob Perkins
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 1:43 PM
To: Bruce Finnigan
Cc: ACE
Subject: Re: [ACEsthetics] Larry Ellison on NSA and privacy. I totally agree with his angle.
Bruce-
thanks for your thoughtful response. I will go to those links, but my first two thoughts are:Obama would not agree with you that he wants to usurp Congress AND the Supreme Court. As a constitutional lawyer in his time, I am sure he understands the boundaries of the Presidency and the three branches of the goverment. Ronald Reagan, on the otherhand, did decide to ignore the laws of Congress when he sold arms for hostages during Iran Contra. Lincoln urinated on the Constitution as well.
Also, the biggest thing to challenge your point is that Obama is closing in on lame duck(ness). He only has 3 years more before he is out and much less than that before people marginalize him as an outgoing President. If he has plans to take over the world he had better start yesterday because the sand is almost out of the hourglass.
I will watch those links and get back to you.
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 8:10 AM, Bruce Finnigan <finniganbruce@yahoo.com> wrote:
Bob,
Here's the hole in his argument. People are not worried that Visa will come into their homes and arrest them if they don't agree with Visa's business policies. If our health care info was put into a database without our names so that more cures could be found and better medicine adopted, who would be against that? You get the same benefit that Ellison pointed out and at the same token people would have their privacy.
The better question is to ask is why the American people are afraid of their government having all this information about them?
Here's what spooks me. We have a President who believes in a national police force - a national police force. BTW, he would control it. The Germans tried this in the early 1940's. It was called the Gestapo. This president believes he is not responsible to Congress or the Supreme Court. If the elected representatives of the people don't agree with him, he does what he wants with Executive Decrees. Are you aware that millions and millions of dollars are being spent on ammunition for the Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS)? Are you aware that the DHS is buying hundreds of armored vehicles - hundreds - enough to fight a 24 year war in Iraq? Google it if you don't believe me. Do you know who this President has decided who will be this National Police Force? The DHS.
So, we have a President who believes he is above Congress and the Supreme Court, who has the NSA listening to all of our phone and e-mail communications and who is covertly creating a national police force with armored vehicles and you think that people who are afraid of their loss of privacy in this scenario are "irrational"? I beg to differ.
Check this out:
From: Bob Perkins <turkeysturkeys@gmail.com>
To: ACE <ACEsthetics@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 12:58 PM
Subject: [ACEsthetics] Larry Ellison on NSA and privacy. I totally agree with his angle.
I snipped 4 minutes from this hour long interview with Charlie Rose. I found Ellison to be very fascinating and thoughtful. I don't understand the obsession with "privacy" either...I believe in privacy but not when it is irrational (as I define it)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0Ji7oRiFVMthings in common between Steve Jobs and Larry Ellison (both adopted)
things in common between Steve Jobs and Bill Gates (dropped out of college)
--
Bob S. Perkins D.D.S.--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ACEsthetics" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to mailto:acesthetics%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to acesthetics@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/acesthetics.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
Bob S. Perkins D.D.S.
http://www.smilesinmalibu.com/--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ACEsthetics" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to acesthetics+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to acesthetics@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/acesthetics.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ACEsthetics" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to acesthetics+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to acesthetics@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/acesthetics.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
Bob S. Perkins D.D.S.
www.smilesinmalibu.com--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ACEsthetics" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to acesthetics+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to acesthetics@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/acesthetics.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
Bob S. Perkins D.D.S.
www.smilesinmalibu.com
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ACEsthetics" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to acesthetics+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to acesthetics@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/acesthetics.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
Bob S. Perkins D.D.S.
www.smilesinmalibu.com
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ACEsthetics" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to acesthetics+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to acesthetics@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/acesthetics.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ACEsthetics" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to acesthetics+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to acesthetics@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/acesthetics.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
No comments:
Post a Comment