Slashdot Mirror

Which is why I would like to introduce a bill with no provisions, which would make it illegal to piggyback bills. They are what they are, take it or leave it. No? Next subject.

If anyone needs me, I'll be hanging out in my own utopia.

Interesting historical fact: Section 9 of the Confederate States Constitutionincluded exactly such a provision:

Every law or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.

Personally, I'd also like to see something requiring that each new law or regulation passed for a period of 12 years require that two laws be repealed. That would perhaps clear out some of the old cruft...

The total population of the United States in 1860 was a little over 31 million ( http://www.civilwarhome.com/population1860.htm ). This includes the states that would become the Confederate States.The population of the United States in 1910 was a little over 92 million. In 1912 the population of Germany was a little over 66 million, Russia was about 173 million, the population of the UK was around 20 million. So comparing raw numbers doesn't really tell us anything. By your own numbers the soldiers that fought in the American Civil War were 10% of the population. That means they were probably a pretty good cross section of the populace.

nstead of taking a history 101 course, try reading original source material from the day. You will find a radically different view from your own

Sorry dog, you are just completely wrong.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/csconstitution.htm

here's an editorial on the possibility of southern secession in the NY Times from before the war: at issue: slavery

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9B02E5DD1E31E134BC4151DFB667838B679FDE

From 1853,

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9E00E5D7133AE334BC4D51DFB2668388649FDE

It really goes on and on.

The point here is, that, you don't need to be in favor of slavery if you think the south should secede again, but there's no denying that the south originally seceded so that they could keep slaves.

When we formed our federal government, distance and travel time were big obstacles, And led to the congress having a very long leash with regard to the will of the people and the will of the states, and maybe it's time to reign in that leash.

No, congress had a short leash, states had more power. That ended with the Civil War. The Civil War was not about slavery, it was about states rights. Amendment XVII: Election of senators further strengthened congress. Prior to it's ratification state legislatures chose senators. With it's ratification though people voted directly for senators. this removed power from the states. Many of the USA's Founding Fathers wanted a weak federal government.

Perhaps we could start by setting up the infrastructure for congressional telecommuting, followed by measures to encourage the members of congress to stay within their constituencies.

Originally representatives and senators had to work for a living, as business owners, farmers, or employees and because of this they didn't spend much tyme in Washington DC. Today that I know of only Texas still follows this. The Texas legislatures can only meet for regular sessions in odd numbered years, not every year, and only for a maximum of 140 days.

Falcon

Wow, that doesn't even come close in terms of american casualties.

Try the Civil War.

Your Second Amendment is nice in theory. In practice, it is a paper tiger.

I respectfully disagree, strongly. The second amendment does in fact have teeth, it kills over 12,000 Americans annually - enter "homicide" for option 1 and "firearm" for option 2.

Think about that. The number of combat deaths in the civil war was approximately 205,000 (most others died of disease). The right to bear arms in case a rebellion against the government is necessary results in the same number of fatal shootings as the civil war every 17 years! Right in people's homes and in the streets! What kind of sense is that supposed to make?!

And to the immediate north, Canada's gun deaths have been cut in half since imposing tough gun restrictions. Wouldn't it be nice if American kids could at least graduate college before a civil war's worth of murder occurs in their country?

As you recall the U.S. fought the bloodiest war in its history because a Northern biased Federal government wanted to abolish slavery

The US Civil War wasn't over slavery, it was all about keeping the nation united. The war didn't start until some southern states secesseded from the USA and formed the Confederate States of America.

For the clueless: Jubal Early was a semi-famous confederate general during the American Civil War. After a string of crushing defeats, he went into hybernation for a while. Awakening into the 24th century, he became black like me, and retrained himself to become a schizo Boba-Fett-esque bounty hunter.

Ulysses Grant graduated near last in his class at West Point. He performed well in the Mexican War as a junior officer but dropped out of the military in the 1854 for poor performance and then failed at several business ventures and became a drunk and a failure. Worked in the family in Galena Illinois until the Civil War came along and the army was so desperate for officers they would even give Sam Grant a second shot.

George McClellan was second in his class at West Point and was accurately judged to be a brilliant organizer. He built the Army of the Potomac. Unfortunately, once he had to use the army in combat, he choked. He was too hesitant. A pissed off Lincoln said McClellan had a case of the "slows" and asked if he wasn't using the army just then, would he mind if Lincoln borrowed it.

Grant by contrast remained a plodding tactician but never flinched under pressure. He did well in combat and rose to Colonel and then started picking up general's stars and eventually the Army of the Potomac. He never showed much flair but damn if he didn't grind the rebels down with relentless combat. Grant won ugly but he won.

Oh, and under pressure from Grant, the often overrated Lee choked too. Repeatedly. (See http://www.civilwarhome.com/coldharborsummary.htm/ .

That number is the total number of deaths, not just those that were killed in the field of battle. That number is above 50,000. Advances in medicine is one of those things keeping our troops alive right now, making them one of those things that "makes war more bearable" as the origional poster would have put it. A gunshot wound in the leg is no longer the death sentence it was back then, and we don't have guys starving to death and dying of disease between the fighting.

"I do agree with your point that the type of fighting waged during the Civil War was so absolutely horrible that it gave people pause before fighting it."

I think you may have missed the point. Wars (along with other violent acts) were indeed more costly then, but they were still just as willing to fight them then as we are today. I hear people arguing that we "didn't need to fight in Iraq or Vietnam", but were all of the wars back then any more necessary? The Southern states didn't need to secede and start a war, nor did the Northern States really need to challenge them. We didn't need to fight the US-Mexican war or the Spainish-American war. And then look at the Revolutionary War. We like to talk about it in terms of fighting for our freedom and democracy, but what was it really about? Taxes, aka money. Was that really necessary? Probably not, and yet the horrible cost of war did not stop our forefathers.

"If such a strategy unquestionably worked and helped The Good Blue States defeat The Evil Red States, why isn't it being considered as an option in Iraq? Armies are great at killing people and blowing stuff up but they make lousy police forces and negotiators."

Well for starters we thankfully have higher standards these days. Victory in war is a means to and end, not an end in itself. Thus the idea that we should do whatever it takes to win a war is flawed.

Whats more, are you suggesting that as a result of Sherman's actions peace was quick and easy after the Civil War? No, we went through a long period of Reconstruction, and terrorist groups such as the KKK remained a force long after the "major combat phase" had ended.

Yeah, the live TV coverage seen worldwide of that crisis was riveting.

I don't know if you are being sarcasic or making a point (or both) but perhaps you should research the New York City draft riots, the utter destruction of Atlanta and other Southern cities, the carnage of Fredericksburg or the 620,000+ KIAs. To put that into perspective that's almost 2% of the population of the day. Think of us fighting a war and suffering 5,800,000 killed-in-action and perhaps 10,000,000 - 20,000,000 wounded. Also keep in mind that "wounded" during the Civil War likely meant missing arms or legs upon your return from the front.

Live TV coverage or not 9/11 doesn't even come close to the Civil War in terms of impact on American Society. 9/11 wasn't even the bloodiest day in American history. In fact I would dare say that the live TV coverage didn't have as much to do with the impact of 9/11 as people might think. Pearl Harbor had a similar impact without live-TV coverage..

Yeah, the live TV coverage seen worldwide of that crisis was riveting.

I don't know if you are being sarcasic or making a point (or both) but perhaps you should research the New York City draft riots, the utter destruction of Atlanta and other Southern cities, the carnage of Fredericksburg or the 620,000+ KIAs. To put that into perspective that's almost 2% of the population of the day. Think of us fighting a war and suffering 5,800,000 killed-in-action and perhaps 10,000,000 - 20,000,000 wounded. Also keep in mind that "wounded" during the Civil War likely meant missing arms or legs upon your return from the front.

Live TV coverage or not 9/11 doesn't even come close to the Civil War in terms of impact on American Society. 9/11 wasn't even the bloodiest day in American history. In fact I would dare say that the live TV coverage didn't have as much to do with the impact of 9/11 as people might think. Pearl Harbor had a similar impact without live-TV coverage..

Especially silly when SC is already the buckle on the U.S. Bible Belt.

Especially scary since SC was the first to secede from the U.S. back in 1860.

I wonder if exercising the Constitutional right to secede is a violation of homeland security?

I demand your blood in the soil from birth to know where your loyalties are rooted.

Good idea, because where you are born determines your loyalty so accurately.

The age-old numbers game:


yeah...just look at the thousands of body bags being pulled off the planes...

dude...you need some perspective here...

Vietnam....56,000 dead americans....

Iraq....550 dead americans....



Only 56,000 dead in Vietnam, and we just gave up and let the other guys take the country? Wow, that's nothing compared to this. Yes, and someone else can come up with numbers from a much more brutal and deadly war, to no point- that's all in the past. The present conflict can either get much worse or much better depending on actions taken right now.

Give credit where credit is due. Secession was our idea. It didn't work out too well though.

The South will rise again... one of these days.

Is "empire" supposed to be a perjorative term here?

Just a statement of fact. But no, I'd rather not live in an empire myself, thank you.

Most of your other points make sense, but I'd argue any system that allows something as evil as slavery to continue because of "states' rights" is hopelessly flawed and should be eliminated as quickly as possible.

From what I remember (don't have a source to cite right off the bat, sorry), the CSA did explicitly legalize slave ownership -- they pretty much had to in order to avoid a rebellion of their own -- but outlawed the importation of new slaves, and likely would have ended up phasing out slavery. I'm not excusing the system of slavery practiced in the Americas by any means -- it was cruel and immoral -- but much of what I've read indicates that it was an economically untenable system anyway, and they held on to it as long as they did they felt backed against the wall by northern interests.

As far as hopeless flaws go, you do know that the Cherokee joined the CSA, listing among their reasons the doctrine of nullification, Lincoln's abrogation of various Constitutionally enumerated rights, and most importantly the fact that the CSA actually showed an interest in making treaties with the Cherokee nation and sticking to them, don't you? This was in marked contrast to the USA, which stole the Cherokees' land and sent them off to concentration camps on a death march that rivalled Nazi Germany for cruelty. Any system that allows something as evil as a racist holocaust because of "manifest destiny" is hopelessly flawed and should be eliminated as quickly as possible.

From the link's left rail:

This page was updated on December 31, 1969

Wow! Slow updates. Actually, a more accurate date might be something like December 20, 1860.

the following things had nothing to do with it:

The Quebec act, which prevented expansion west of the Appalachians

Part of the protection from Indians I mentioned. The colonists had been running into trouble with natives that they had ripped off in land deals. The British, in an attempt to stop raids and war, had tried to finally make a land agreement that wouldn't be violated, and let the Indians have a chunk of land.

Mercantilist trade barriers

Which came up *after* the colonists refused to pay for their military protection in order to punish them for not paying.

The fact that the windfall made by the British was much more than the cost they incurred guarding the place

I honestly don't know whether this is true, though it might be. The way they made money, however, was through taxes...

the Confederate side is not

All I really needed for my point was that the Union not to be primarily fighting against slavery, but I'll see if I can still argue this. It's true that slavery was an underlying cause of many of the Confederacy's actions, but I believe that there were other issues quite aside from that.

What government line are you listening to?

I'm not trying to sum up the complete position, just the bits that are frusteratingly and egregiously wrong or distorted. I've heard at many times justification of bombing "terrorist camps" and seen the human rights issued played up quite a bit.

However, the Taliban and Al Qaeda is not running the place anymore. And that is a Good Thing

Wow..someone else uses the "Good Thing" capitalization. I love that. :-)

Anyway, Al Qaeda was hardly running the country. The worst you can claim is that the Taliban (which *was* running the country) wouldn't hand them over to us. And given that bin Laden has been a major figure to the fighters in that country in their decades long struggle against Soviet occupation...it'd be like us handing over George Washington.

That wasn't the Government line, never was. The Government line was that if they conquered France and England, soon they will be trying to conquer us.

Yes. Empire-building, as I wrote in my post.

It is interesting, given that the founders of our country picked no bones about having no such separation. In fact, the Declaration of Independence talks about the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and of the need for its direct influence on manmade government.

Our currency carries our motto, "In God we Trust!"

Our pledge states that we are a nation indivisible "under God"

Is it moral and upright to take a growing child and pervert them in a way that doesn't allow them to live a normal life or not? And God's law says it isn't.

And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that
cometh out of man, in their sight...Then he [the Lord] said unto me, Lo, I
have given thee cow's dung for man's dung, and thou shalt prepare thy bread
therewith. -Ezek. 4:12-15

While this may be true not all pro-life people are christian or violent, I am neither. Violence against something like abortion today is like fighting violently against slavery (ala john brown) and should be regarded as such. When you have such a tremendous injustice as slavery or abrtion that allows the systematic dehumanization and murder of a significant number of humans you are going to see people using direct action as individuals even if it will take a social revolution (violent or otherwise) to actually postively change the causes of the issue.

I wasn't sure about the Ben Hur case, so I looked it up (the article I was reading is actually the first chapter of a book called Script Girls: Women Screenwriters in Hollywood, and touches on the copyright issue very briefly). Lew Wallace, the author of Ben Hur was an American, he apparently fought for the Confederacy in the Civil War. The case I mentioned is Kalem Co. v. Harper Bros (1911), and was taken all the way to the Supreme Court, where it was decided that current copyright laws also extended to motion pictures. here's the text of the ruling of the case.