Those *dangerous* Korean War relics

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Civil war???


Yup. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents a state from
leaving a union that it freely joined. The southern states were forced to
rejoin the union.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Civil war???



Yup. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents a state from
leaving a union that it freely joined. The southern states were forced to
rejoin the union.



OK, from a state perspective I see your point. However, to me a free
country means that individuals have freedom, not just states. The
slaves in the southern states certainly wouldn't have considered
themselves to be living in a free country.


Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

OK, from a state perspective I see your point. However, to me a free
country means that individuals have freedom, not just states. The slaves
in the southern states certainly wouldn't have considered themselves to be
living in a free country.


Agreed. Slavery was wrong, no question about that. But it was not
unconstitutional and it would have eventually ended here without a war just
as it did in the rest of the Americas, except Haiti, I believe. Lincoln is
revered today for preserving the Union, but he did so in only a geographical
sense. The relationship of the federal government to the states was
significantly different after the war. While slaves gained freedom via the
war, every other American was less free.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...
Agreed. Slavery was wrong, no question about that.

That's very progressive of you, Steven. But it doesn't quite jibe with your
earlier post today, in which you listed the Civil War as the first point at
which the US "ceased to be a free country"--which would only be possible if
it had been a free country *until* then.

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news

That's very progressive of you, Steven. But it doesn't quite jibe with
your earlier post today, in which you listed the Civil War as the first
point at which the US "ceased to be a free country"--which would only be
possible if it had been a free country *until* then.


I didn't say the Civil War was the first point at which the US "ceased to
be a free country".

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
k.net...

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news

That's very progressive of you, Steven. But it doesn't quite jibe with
your earlier post today, in which you listed the Civil War as the first
point at which the US "ceased to be a free country"--which would only be
possible if it had been a free country *until* then.

I didn't say the Civil War was the first point at which the US "ceased to
be a free country".

It was the first point you listed when you were asked to explain your remark
that the US had "ceased to be a free country".

When did the US cease to be a free country, in your opinion?

--Gary

How about 9/12, when we couldn't fly and all had to start
wearing name badges with pictures? TFR that aren't
temporary?

Income tax even though the 16th Amendment was not properly
ratified?

Eminent domain as approved by the SCOUS to take your
business or home because it is worth more tax money to the
government if somebody else owns it for a while?

Campaign finance reform that doesn't allow free speech 60
days before an election?

Zero tolerance at school so your kid is suspended because he
has a 1" solid plastic gun with the GI Joe doll?


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
. ..
| "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in message
| k.net...
|
| "Gary Drescher" wrote in
message
| news |
| That's very progressive of you, Steven. But it doesn't
quite jibe with
| your earlier post today, in which you listed the Civil
War as the first
| point at which the US "ceased to be a free
country"--which would only be
| possible if it had been a free country *until* then.
|
| I didn't say the Civil War was the first point at which
the US "ceased to
| be a free country".
|
| It was the first point you listed when you were asked to
explain your remark
| that the US had "ceased to be a free country".
|
| When did the US cease to be a free country, in your
opinion?
|
| --Gary
|
|

National Security Act of 1947.

"Doug" wrote in message
ups.com...
National Security Act of 1947.

You're at least 15 years too late.

More like 50-60 years

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

OK, from a state perspective I see your point. However, to me a free
country means that individuals have freedom, not just states. The slaves
in the southern states certainly wouldn't have considered themselves to be
living in a free country.


Agreed. Slavery was wrong, no question about that. But it was not
unconstitutional and it would have eventually ended here without a war just
as it did in the rest of the Americas, except Haiti, I believe.

Ending slavery without a war was tried in the US and it failed.

Escaped slaves and Native Americans in Brazil banded together
and formed their own nation (DAGS maroons) internal to Brazil that
fought for freedom for most of its ~75 year history.

Interestingly, some of the the leaders of the Haitian slave
rebellion were veterans of the American Revolutionary War,
e.g. commony referred to in our history books as 'French
troops.'

Lincoln is
revered today for preserving the Union, but he did so in only a geographical
sense. The relationship of the federal government to the states was
significantly different after the war. While slaves gained freedom via the
war, every other American was less free.

"If one man is not free, no man is free." There's more truth to
that than meets the eye. Slavery devalued labor, depriving
all laborers of freedom of economic opportunity. De Maupassant
wrote about the societal differences along the Ohio River. On
the North bank hard workers were respected and they could
advance their lot in society via the fruits of their labors. Not
so on the South Bank, where men who worked for a living
were deemed to be hardly better than slaves.

--

FF