It was really close...

"W P Dixon" wrote in message
...
Very well said,
Sometimes we only see the part of history we chose to see. Lincoln had
the entire Maryland State Legislature arrested and never charged with a
crime....just to keep them from voting for or against secession. Numerous
newspaper owner/editors were arrested because they expressed the thought
that the Constitution allowed for secession..as a few northestern states
had
threathened many a time. I didn't agree with Lincoln throwing the
Constitution out of the window then, and I don't agree with doing it now
either.
Lincoln started a very bad trend of the Federal Government having all
of
the power,...and to this day we are at the mercy of the Federal
Government.
I'm pretty sure the founding fathers have been disgusted at us since 1861
..

Actually not. Some of the founding fathers, such as Jefferson, wanted a
very limited federal government and others wanted a federal government even
larger and more intrusive than what we have now. Don't forget also some of
the founding fathers wanted a monarchy. The end result was a compromise but
the Jeffersonian minimalist have over the centuries been losing ground to
the bigger is better types.

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
. ..

"W P Dixon" wrote in message
...
Very well said,
Sometimes we only see the part of history we chose to see. Lincoln
had
the entire Maryland State Legislature arrested and never charged with a
crime....just to keep them from voting for or against secession.
Numerous
newspaper owner/editors were arrested because they expressed the thought
that the Constitution allowed for secession..as a few northestern states
had
threathened many a time. I didn't agree with Lincoln throwing the
Constitution out of the window then, and I don't agree with doing it now
either.
Lincoln started a very bad trend of the Federal Government having
all
of
the power,...and to this day we are at the mercy of the Federal
Government.
I'm pretty sure the founding fathers have been disgusted at us since
1861
.

Actually not. Some of the founding fathers, such as Jefferson, wanted a
very limited federal government

Actually MOST wanted minimalist government. It wasn't until 1860 that the
trend reversed entirely. Prior ot that the only ones wanting BIG government
were the ones who were feeding at the trough.

and others wanted a federal government even
larger and more intrusive than what we have now.

Most noticably Hamilton and Clinton (George, not Bubba).

Don't forget also some of
the founding fathers wanted a monarchy.

Hamilton again, and they were not the majority and were pretty much of of
the "limelight" by 1800.

Patrick Henry wanted a theocracy, and by that, he was pretty much a "has
been" shortly after his "Give Me Liberty" speech.


The end result was a compromise but
the Jeffersonian minimalist have over the centuries been losing ground to
the bigger is better types.

It really took hold with Lincoln (a Hegelian) and then with Marx and the
"Progressives". People lapped it up thinking they were going to dig into the
deep pockets and the govt was more than happy to oblige.

Dave,
Very true, Jefferson and Hamilton and their followers had conflicting
views. Even the smaller offshoots...But one thing that they could do was
meet on middle ground, something our two parties don't seem to do much
anymore. I am a history nut! I didn't want to write a history lesson , but
thanks for filling in some for me

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
. ..

.

Actually not. Some of the founding fathers, such as Jefferson, wanted a
very limited federal government and others wanted a federal government
even
larger and more intrusive than what we have now. Don't forget also some
of
the founding fathers wanted a monarchy. The end result was a compromise
but
the Jeffersonian minimalist have over the centuries been losing ground to
the bigger is better types.

"W P Dixon" wrote in message ...
Lincoln started a very bad trend of the Federal Government having all of
the power,...and to this day we are at the mercy of the Federal
Government.

Yep, Lincoln proved that the concept of States Rights was just a fiction...
All in all considered, HE is the one who started the War of Northern
Aggression...

"Alan" wrote in message

Lincoln suspended habeas corpus among other things.

To be fair, he had constitutional justification...time of rebellion or
insurrection et al.

Even the human body's immune system over reacts when
faced with invaders.

Interesting analogy.

-c

Actually you are not being fair, states had secceded, which at that time was
Constitutional. What Lincoln did was make a war with a new soveriegn nation.
You can't really call it a rebellion if it is one country against another.
Well, you can if you went to public schools! History as they say is
written by the victor.

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech
"gatt" wrote in message
...

"Alan" wrote in message

Lincoln suspended habeas corpus among other things.

To be fair, he had constitutional justification...time of rebellion or
insurrection et al.

Even the human body's immune system over reacts when
faced with invaders.

Interesting analogy.

-c

"W P Dixon" wrote in message news:hV6he.42

Actually you are not being fair, states had secceded, which at that time
was
Constitutional. What Lincoln did was make a war with a new soveriegn
nation.
You can't really call it a rebellion if it is one country against another.
Well, you can if you went to public schools!

LOL. "Seceded." *ahem*

I've been researching and writing the civil war for something like ten years
now. Can't find the part of the Constitution where it says that secession
is legal. Article I, Section 9, of the U.S. Constitution, however, states
"The privilege of the Writ of Habeus Corpus shall not be suspended, unless
when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

Personally, let's just say my ancestors came from Mississippi and Louisiana
and served on the side that declared it their legal right to secede. But if
Lincoln determined the impending outbreak of civil war to be a case of
rebellion or invasion, he may have suspended it in the interest of public
safety.

-c

On 5/13/05 4:18 AM, in article
, "Denny"
wrote:

In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews. and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a
trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a
Protestant.

Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.


************************************************** ****************************
*
Now they are willing to kill people who get lost and cross invisible
lines in the sky so that the powerful and the politically connected can
feel safe... Will they next start shooting our children because they
ride their bikes across an invisible line on the ground?

The Patriot Act, is not...


Be reasonable. The prohibited area around the White House has been there for
decades. No one was talking about shooting these guys down because they had
violated the ADIZ or the restricted areas. They were inside the original
prohibited area and not responding in any way to signals or radio calls.
This has nothing to do with the Patriot Act or anything else that the
current administration has done. The Cessna flew right over the Vice
President's home. It flew between Congress and the White House. How clueless
is that? It has been illegal to fly there since the height of the Cold War.
Personally, I think the Secret Service showed considerable restraint.

And yes, if your children start riding their bikes toward certain
installations, do not respond to calls for them to stop and ignore warning
shots, it is possible that someone is going to shoot them. And you know
what? That has always been true in every country and every time since the
beginning of history. Children can be very effective as soldiers, spies,
assassins and saboteurs.


denny

Christopher,

I think the Secret Service showed considerable restraint.


Because the "collateral damage" of shooting the plane down would have
been way higher than any damage inflicted by the plane itself. Simple
as that.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message

I think the Secret Service showed considerable restraint.

Because the "collateral damage" of shooting the plane down would have
been way higher than any damage inflicted by the plane itself. Simple
as that.

Theoretical.

A plane crashed into the white house lawn once already. If it had
disintegrated in midair and showered down somewhere, it wouldn't necessarily
inflict any higher damage than a Cessna plowing into the front of the White
House or some open assembly of people.

-c