Those *dangerous* Korean War relics

Income tax? Prohibition? Joined United Nations?


--
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.


"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote
in message
.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:LQZfg.25291$ZW3.19897@dukeread04...
|
| This was a free country before 1968, then they passed a
new
| law which required all "destructive devices" to be
| registered and deactivated.
|
|
| The US ceased to be a free country long before 1968.
|
|

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:2Regg.25779$ZW3.13140@dukeread04...

Income tax? Prohibition? Joined United Nations?


Prohibition, yes, but we repealed that. The Civil War, military draft,
Social Security, the dole, Social Security, minimum wage, etc., etc., etc.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:2Regg.25779$ZW3.13140@dukeread04...

Income tax? Prohibition? Joined United Nations?



Prohibition, yes, but we repealed that. The Civil War, military draft,
Social Security, the dole, Social Security, minimum wage, etc., etc., etc.

Civil war???

"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

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

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.

Aside from the language prohibiting individual states from enterring
into a confederation.

Seceding first, and enterring into a confederation later is an
intellectually dishonest shell game, not an action that is
permissible under the Constitution.

And the states that seceded absolutely were not seceding to
preserve freedom. They seceded because the states that had
already abolished slavery within their borders, or had never
permitted it in the first place, had become united in their
dedication to prohibit the expansion of slavery into the
Western Territories. That made emancipation inevitable.
The slave states saw the hand writing on the wall,
turned tail and ran.

--

FF

Traditional slavery would have ended when Briggs & Stratton
built their small engines. But, the sex slave trade goes on.
Slavery is rampant in other parts of the world today,
primarily Africa, Asia and the Middle East. The UN and the
Muslim religion support slavery.

Importation of slaves was illegal in the USA after 1807, but
ownership was still legal. The South's economy was based on
hand labor agriculture, cotton. A lot of white people
fought and died to free the slaves. A lot of Southerners
fought and died to preserve their life-style. Both were
honorable. But slavery was still wrong and it ceased to be
the same after 1865. But there was still economic "slavery"
for many people working for low wages in company towns,
buying food and clothes at the company store on credit.

Laws change, society changes, hopefully for the better. We
should remember the past, so we don't continue to make the
same mistakes, but we must get over the anger and personal
feelings about what happened 50, 100, 150, 500, 2000 years
ago.


--
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.


wrote in message
ps.com...
|
| 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.
|
| Aside from the language prohibiting individual states from
enterring
| into a confederation.
|
| Seceding first, and enterring into a confederation later
is an
| intellectually dishonest shell game, not an action that is
| permissible under the Constitution.
|
| And the states that seceded absolutely were not seceding
to
| preserve freedom. They seceded because the states that
had
| already abolished slavery within their borders, or had
never
| permitted it in the first place, had become united in
their
| dedication to prohibit the expansion of slavery into the
| Western Territories. That made emancipation inevitable.
| The slave states saw the hand writing on the wall,
| turned tail and ran.
|
| --
|
| FF
|