Conference back40::soapbox

You've got to be kidding.  Name the last 10 VPs and list their accomplishments.

                   <<< Note 505.0 by SALEM::BURGER "NORM" >>>
                    -< Al Gore blending into the scenery? >-

    Yes, he does blend into the scenery.
    Even when he's there he's almost non-existent.

    
    
    Is that a question on the Mensa exam?  :*)
    

    
    No, that's much too easy a question.
    A truly hard question is "name the last VP and his 10 accomplishments".
    
    								-mr. bill

    Dan Quayle singlehandedly revived the flagging political humour
    economy.

    VP is probably the most thankless job in government.  A VP is more of a
    diplomat...going to the funerals and all that good stuff.  George Bush
    was pretty much an unknown during Reagans first four years.
    
    Al Gores a tree hugging flip flopper.  At least Quayle had the guts to
    speak his convictions.
    
    -Jack 

	>>At least Quayle had the guts to
        >>speak his convictions.

	and quite eloquently, i might add.

    	       President	    Vice President
    
    		Clinton			Gore
    		Bush			Quayle
    		Reagon			Bush
    		Carter			Mondale
    		Ford			????
    		Nixon			Ford
    		Nixon			Agnew
    		Johnson			????
    		Kennedy			Johnson
    		Eisenhower		Nixon
    		Truman			????
    		FDR			Truman
               
    
    	I can't believe I can't remember Ford's VP!!!
    

    
    I missed that.  How many convictions did Quayle have. For what
    crimes?

Yeah, that was real brave of ol' Dan to insist on showing us how stupid
he was.

Dan's courage also showed clearly during Vietnam when he called daddy -
or was it grandaddy - and got a_alternate assignment in the Guard.

And speaking of convictions, how's that court case going about the guy
who dealt drugs to ol' Dan?

TTom

    Makes no diff.  That issue is symbolic.  I'd rather have a man who
    trips over his words than a politician who is a people pleaser.
    
    Abe Lincoln was publicly ridiculed, called a babboon, not esteemed by
    his wife, and studdered at times.  But he is known as the greatest
    president because he was a man of character.
    
    -Jack

>    		Ford			????

Nelson Rocke[r]feller, me thinks...

    Fords VP was Nelson Rockerfeller or Barry Goldwater.  I think it was
    Goldwater.
    
    -Jack

    'twas Rocky, AUH2O was running against LBJ in '64 and lost.

Rockefeller.  NNTTM.  And Johnson's VP was Hubert Humphrey.

The list of VPs is very nice, but where's the list of accomplishments?

    some of 'em became prez, the rest were Vanishing Persons...
    
    AlGump will be a Vanished Person in '96

>Abe Lincoln was publicly ridiculed, called a babboon, not esteemed by
>    his wife, and studdered at times.  But he is known as the greatest
>    president because he was a man of character.

Yeah?  So what's that all got to do with Danforth?  Nuttin.  Specially
the character part.

    
    re: .5
    
    >Dan Quayle singlehandedly revived the flagging political humour
    >economy.
    
     Nope... not "singlehandedly"...
    
    He had help from the cue-card holder and the teacher what wrote on them
    cue-cards...

How come Packwoody is getting a private hearing?

Is this a new precedent?  The more embarassing the
charges are, the more private the hearing will be?

I thought Agnew took the bribes while he was governor of Maryland.

    re .19
    
    I think you could call it a vice precedent.

Remember Spiro's "nattering nabobs of negativism" speech?

Oh, .19, very good!

I mean .22, magnifico!

So Spiro's accomplishment was alliteration?  That was really his speechwriter's
accomplishment.  I believe William Safire wrote most of the memorable ones.

And who could forget the photo of LBJ showing his
appendectomy scar to the reporters?  That man was
a class act all the way.

I think he was still holding the orifice.

    
    re: .28
    
    Was that the day Forrest Gump showed him his "buttocks"???
    

 LBJ was still in office when he did the scar thing (along with pulling the
 ears of his beagles which outrayyyyyyyyyyyged a bunch of folks).





 Jim

Then another photo opportunity: LBJ decided to lift one 
of his basset hounds off the ground.  By the dog's ears.

    >Abe Lincoln was publicly ridiculed, called a babboon, not esteemed by
    >his wife, and studdered at times.  But he is known as the greatest
    >president because he was a man of character.
    
    Yea, he was a character alright. This particular character caused the
    deaths of a few million human beings, American human beings. What a guy!
    
    ...Tom

    Truman's VP - A. Barkley (sp)?
    

    
    > >Abe Lincoln was publicly ridiculed, called a babboon, not esteemed by
    > >his wife, and studdered at times.  But he is known as the greatest
    > >president because he was a man of character.
    > 
    > Yea, he was a character alright. This particular character caused the
    > deaths of a few million human beings, American human beings. What a guy!
    
    Please clarify Tom....
    
    Dan

Remember the Ferraro/Bush debate?  IMO, Ferraro left
Bush on the ropes...his responses reminded me of Jack
Benny's..."now, just a minute!", "now, cut that out!".

  .37  aaagagagag.  exactly.

    
    
    Then there's the 10th-20th presidents with their vice presidents....
    James Polk........George Dallas
    Zach Taylor.......Millard Fillmore
    Millard Fillmore..(Did not have a V.P.)
    Franklin Pierce...William King
    James Buchanan....John Breckenridge
    Abe Lincoln.......Hamlin, then Johnson
    Andrew Johnson....(Did not have a V.P.)
    Ulysses Grant.....Colfax, then Wilson
    Rutherford Hayes..Bill Wheeler
    James Garfield....Chester Arthur
    

    >Please clarify Tom....
    
    He started this small skirmish called the "Civil War" I think.
    
    ...Tom

    
    re:  >Please clarify Tom....
    
    For sauted purposes???
    

    Ferraro?... is that a ball player or sumptin'?
    
    Or maybe a car...
    
    Chris

    
    > He started this small skirmish called the "Civil War" I think.
    
    He started it all by hisself huh ?  Really, that's news to me.  Who'da
    thunk it....
    
    Would you care to expand on that statement?
    
    Dan
    

    .43
    
    > He started it all by hisself huh ?  Really, that's news to me.
    
    Are you really history-impaired, or is that an act?
    
    As Chief Executive, he used his authority to prevent recognition of the
    right to self-determination of the Confederate States of America,
    conveniently forgetting in the process that the First American
    Revolution was fought for just that right.  "When, in the course of
    human events, it becomes necessary for a people to dissolve the
    political bands..."

    
    Dick, I see.  This make Lincoln the SOLE reason for the civil war....
    hhhhmmmm, never knew that.
    
    Dan

    >Would you care to expand on that statement?
    
    Even Stalin had help. That didn't make him any less guilty. However, 
    Lincoln was Commander and Chief of the U.S.OF A, in addition to setting
    US policy. It was his decision to initiate a policy that was
    contrary to the will of the southern states. Then backed up this policy
    with force. He could have stopped the bloodshed at any time but chose
    to escalate a war upon the people who disagreed with him. No different
    than Stalin IMO. When a politician wants something he is willing to do
    anything to get it, including causing the death of the citizens.
    
    ...Tom 

    .45
    
    No, Dan, he wasn't the sole reason for it, as you well know, so don't
    think you're fooling anyone with your cute act.  His intransigence,
    however, was the proximate cause, which is to say that he's the one who
    touched off the powder keg, as it were, and that's equivalent to saying
    he started the war.  Had he not refused the South the freedom to go its
    way, the war would never have occurred.

    
    Lincoln, Lincoln Bo Bincoln Bonana fana Fo Fincoln...

    Fe fi fo fincoln-----------------Lincoln

    >> Had he not refused the South the freedom to go its
    >> way, the war would never have occurred.
    
    He probably should've done just that, actually.  A hundred+ years
    later, what would've been different (other than the obvious saving
    of lives, and the existence of descendants that otherwise wouldn't
    have existed)?
    
    If slavery is the issue, I can't believe that slavery would've
    survived in the South much longer in any event, war or no war.
    It would certainly be long gone by now.
    
    So there'd two countries occupying this space instead of one.
    How different would they be?  As different as the U.S. and Canada,
    for example?  This could've been interesting...
    
    Chris

    
    > Had he not refused <blank>, <blank> would never have occurred.

    There is a lot of places that this statement could be used to justify
    almost anything.  To lay all of this at his door is doing him a
    disservice.

    Dan

    Another historical what-if:
    
    Suppose a couple of biggie states (like Calif) wanted to bail
    out of the busybody Fed machine (over something like the immigration
    issue, and related Fed funding/assistance, etc.), and Clinton
    got all red-faced and wanted to send in the troops.
    
    Should we have another Civil War today if some states decide to
    flip the bird to D.C.?  Who'd want to go fight in such a war?
    
    Chris

      <<< Note 505.44 by SMURF::BINDER "Night's candles are burnt out." >>>

    
>    As Chief Executive, he used his authority to prevent recognition of the
>    right to self-determination of the Confederate States of America,
>    conveniently forgetting in the process that the First American
>    Revolution was fought for just that right.  "When, in the course of
>    human events, it becomes necessary for a people to dissolve the
>    political bands..."

If California, Arizona, NM, and Texas petitioned to secede from the Union 
because they wanted to institute laws permitting shooting illegal 
aliens on sight, should Clinton let them, or should he fight if necessary?

Now, I know that Lincoln would gladly have allowed slavery to have 
continued to preserve the Union - at least at the outset - but he also knew 
that to permit almost half the country to break away would have crippled 
the growing republic. And to let it happen under his watch and for such an 
odious reason would be intolerable.

    
    re: .52
    
    >Who'd want to go fight in such a war?
    
    Chicanos???
    

    .51
    
    >> Had he not refused <blank>, <blank> would never have occurred.
    >
    > There is a lot of places that this statement could be used to justify
    > almost anything.
    
    You really are history-impaired.  Pity.  Those observing this set-to
    will doubtless observe that there are no <blank>s in my note; you have
    inserted them  I'll thank you to quote me accurately and completely,
    please.
    
    It is documented fact that the leaders of the Confederate States were
    prepared to eschew war, if only they could be left to go their own
    political way.  The war was not fought over slavery, at least not by
    the South; it was fought for the right political of self-determination.
    Lincoln not only failed (or refused) to acknowledge the truth of the
    sobriquet "The Second American Revolution" that was given to the war by
    the South, he also chose to play dirty (as is politicians' wont) by
    making it a moral argument rather than a political one.  In so doing,
    he left us a mess that we're still cleaning up.
    
    Chris is right, you see.  Had the war not been fought, or - given that
    the war was indeed fought - had slavery not been made the central issue
    from the Union point of view in order to keep those volunteers coming,
    slavery would have fallen of its own weight - the same way it fell in
    Europe some thousand years ago.  And had that happened, racism would
    not be anything like so serious a problem as it is; people resent
    having things shoved down their throats that they could well have
    learned to like had they partaken at their own speed.
    
    In sum, Lincoln, while a highly principled man and an astute
    politician, was a misguided fool.

    The united states of america would not exist as it does today had it
    not been for that war. There would no doubt be 2 different countries in
    my opinion.

    Oliver_B made an inference that Dan Quayle lacked character.  I'd be
    interested in knowing what he did to help you formulate this opinion.
    
    -Jack

    
    >slavery would have fallen of its own weight - the same way it fell in
    >Europe some thousand years ago.  And had that happened, racism would
    
    Depends on your POV.  Feudalism was little more than slavery in the
    1400's.  It was Tenant farming in the 1600's, Truck wages in the
    1700's and indentured servitude in the 1800's.  Not to mention that
    Europeans started and maintained the African slave trade all the while.

    
    Mr Binder,
    
    You are over sensitive.  I intentionally inserted those <blank>s to
    point out the weakness in your statement.  What I said is true, that
    your statement could be used to support nearly anything.
    
    Dan

    	I think they should let California secede.  Actually, we
    	should encourage it.
    
    	It would make US base closings a lot easier to decide, and
    	then we can pretend that all those cheap wines were imports.

    .59
    
    > You are over sensitive.
    
    Poppycock.  I merely objected to your use of my words, some of them
    anyway, to promote your "ex uno omnes" tripe instead of answering the
    specifics of my statement.

    Fisrt Bancock, now Poopycock.

>    Fisrt Bancock, now Poopycock.

Take it to the Gay Issues note.

    Not necessarily.

    I think we oughta let California submerge...

    
    It will... eventually...
    

    Yeah, but if we don't hurry up and do it, they'll evolve gills of
    sumtin..you know how dem calfornicatians are always ahead of us on the
    east coast...

    No no no, it's Californiaganders!

	What more proof does one require of Al Gore's ability to 'blend with
the scenery', than this topic...?

	Apart from the title, and two more replies, he is almost invisible!

	-):
-Jay

    
    Mr Binder,
    
    > Poppycock.  I merely objected to your use of my words, some of them
    > anyway, to promote your "ex uno omnes" tripe instead of answering the
    > specifics of my statement.
    
    I would suggest you get used to it, it happens in here all the time.
    
    HTH
    Dan

    .70
    
    I was going to deliver a snappy putdown that remarked on our relative
    longevities in this forum and the concomitant irony of your suggestion,
    but I can't seem to stop laughing long enough to find something
    suitably witty.

  .71  even amid fits of laughter, he can use words like "concomitant".
       it's not normal, i tell you.

It's appropriate that The Old Man Of The 'Box lives in NH, isn't it?

 .73 hey, he gets routed through FLUME too!

                    <<< Note 505.69 by EDSCLU::JAYAKUMAR >>>

> Apart from the title, and two more replies, he is almost invisible!

He was certainly the person in charge of the "reinventing government" 
initiative.  He was also prominently displayed at the "reinventing
government" one-year anniversary spin-fest.  He was also a prop at the
signing of the Crime Bill.

I haven't seen him lately, but then, have any world leaders died recently?

US News and World Reports has an article on the groups of people who are
trying to influence President Clinton's mind, and Al Gore is one of those
mentioned, but he in only one of many.  As the Clinton whitehouse shifts
into campaign mode, I'm sure they'll use him as an attack dog.  Vice 
Presidents are frequently used to counter criticism that is "beneath" the
President.

    
     I read his book.  It was a labor of love.  That is, my wife gave
    it to me.
    
     bb

    Perhaps, Al Gore is doing the only wise thing that he can at this
    point; and that is to keep a low profile and not be seen as any more a
    part of Clinton's completely inept administration as is possible. 
    
    The above might be the only strategy which could save his political
    career!

    
    Al's career is toast.
    
    Dan

Dan Quayle's prediction for the winner of the NASCAR Brickyard 400:

	1. Jeff Gordon
	2. Rusty Wallace
	3. Sterling Marlin
	4. Dale Earnhardt
	5. Mark Martin.

TTom

    Dan Quayle's prediction for the winner of the NASCAR Brickyard 400:
    
            1. Mr. Magoo
            2. Richard Nixon
            3. That president person
            4. Dan Quayle
    	    5. The guy who makes the bricks		

>    Yea, he was a character alright. This particular character caused the
>    deaths of a few million human beings, American human beings. What a guy!

Hey, you folks seem to have forgotten that Beauregard fired the first shot!
Lincoln wasn't really guilty of much then, except maybe taking a stance
somewhat against slavery in the election, and denying the States' right to
secede after the stuff started to hit the fan.

He certainly persued war with a vengeance once into it, but both sides were
equally guilty of suspending their Constitutions for the sake of the war.
Plenty of blame to go around.

BTW, I believe the death toll stands at about 600,000, I dunno if that
includes non-combatants.

    RE: .81
    
    I think the point is that Lincoln alone had the power to stop the war,
    thus the bloodshed and killing, but didn't for what appears to be
    personal, political, and power grabbing reasons.
    
    ...Tom

    Lincoln didn't find a 'secession' clause in the Constitution.  He did a
    find a Union, agreed upon by all signatories, joined.  He'd sworn to
    uphold and defend the Constitution and by his own lights, that's what
    he did.  Calling him a fool is easy with 130 years of hindsight,
    Binder, but I don't consider it an honest historical evaluation.
    
    DougO

    .83
    
    Read the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution, DougO.  The right
    to secede is implicitly reserved to the States because it is neither
    enumerated as being reserved to the Fed nor explicitly prohibited.  The
    right is, furthermore, implicit in the Declaration of Independence,
    both in the boldly stated first clause and in the implications of the
    reasons enumerated in the Declaration and for which the First American
    Revolution was fought.
    
    I call him a fool because, by failing to accept the full meaning of
    those Amendments, he caused far more suffering by his actions than
    would have been caused by inaction - in the whole time since the war. 
    And I call him a fool honestly, based on what I know of the war and its
    sequel.

    
      This is about what you'd expect from the fantasyland of a MacUser.
    
      As for Wilson's "Right to Self-Determination", that idiotic concept
     had fortunately not been invented in 1860, so is irrelevant.
    
      Consider the Catholics of N. Ireland - if polled, they would choose
     to be part of Ireland.  The N.I. protestants, who outnumber them,
     would choose the UK.  So NI would "self-determine" into the UK.  But
     if you select all of Ireland, of course, the majority would choose
     Ireland.  If you select the British Isles, you get the opposite.
    
      No, self-determination is not mathematically sound.  Try again.
    
      bb

    >Consider the Catholics of N. Ireland - if polled, they would choose to
    >be part of Ireland.  The N.I. protestants, who outnumber them, would
    >choose the UK.  So NI would "self-determine" into the UK.  But if you
    >select all of Ireland, of course, the majority would choose Ireland. 
    >If you select the British Isles, you get the opposite.
    >
    >No, self-determination is not mathematically sound.  Try again.
    
    I fail to see how the last sentence derives from the first paragraph.
    
    Why is the right to Self-Determination "idiotic?"
    What other options are there, other than NOT determining the course of
    one's own fate? Totalitarianism?

    
    > ... based on what I know of the war and its sequel.
    
    Mr. Binder, could you clarify the "its sequel" statement please.
    

    
      Well, we have a modern example of "self-determination" at work
     right now, the former Yugoslavia.
    
      Read carefully our own "Declaration of Independence", starting
     with "When in the course of human events".  To make a new country,
     to cause the inevitable bloodshed such a course will entail, you
     must DEMONSTRATE GREAT INJUSTICE in the status quo.  Nothing else,
     no possible "vote" suffices.
    
      bb

    >     to cause the inevitable bloodshed such a course will entail, you
    
    I think the point is that such bloodshed need not have happened if
    Lincoln had interpreted the Constitution correctly.
    
    Q.E.D.

    
      Sesame street thinking, as usual.  The southern whites wanted to
     take their slaves, secede, and live off their labor while the North
     watched.  This situation would have erupted into violence eventually,
     probably worse.  There is only one correct place to put the blame
     for the Civil War.  It is on the rebel southern whites who tried to
     destroy their own country, committing treason out of greed.  They
     fired on Sumter before Lincoln ever got inaugurated.
    
      bb

    
      Oops.  That may not be correct.  Sumter was 4/9/1861.  I think
     inauguration was two days earlier ?
    
      bb

    I thought inauguration was in March...?

    >There is only one correct place to put the blame for the Civil War.  It
    >is on the rebel southern whites who tried to destroy their own country,
    >committing treason out of greed.  They fired on Sumter before Lincoln
    >ever got inaugurated.
    
    Care to reword this?

    
      OK - they committed the first act of violence.  They started it,
     before Lincoln or anybody else did anything.  They were not the
     aggrieved party - the north was.
    
      bb

    .87
    
    > clarify the "its sequel" statement please
    
    A sequel is what follows.  Does the name KKK mean anything to you?  How
    about Reconstruction?  How about race riots in the 1990s?  All of these
    things are parts of the sequel of the war.  Had the war not been
    fought, slavery would have died of its own weight.  Southern leaders
    knew that; check Robert E. Lee's memoirs.  Lee was determined to
    destroy slavery, but to do it from within the system, in a way that
    would be easier to swallow.  Lincoln abolished it - N.B., only in the
    rebellious territories - at a stroke, thus cramming down the collective
    throat of the South a situation it was simply not prepared to deal
    with.
    
    Both white and black suffered because of what Lincoln did - the whites
    because their industry was destroyed without any chance for a workable
    transition to mechanized labor, and the blacks because they were
    suddenly free - but with no property, no education, no opportunity, and
    no money.  The result of Lincoln's ill-though-out political maneuver
    was to cause the unnecessary deaths of some 360,000 soldiers and who
    knows how many civilians, and to aggravate all the South's problems
    without ameliorating ANYTHING.  Blacks just went on working for their
    old masters because they had no other recourse.  Because it had drained
    itself to fight an unnecessary war, the South was crippled
    economically and, in plain fact, has not even now fully recovered.

    Slavery was not the main issue in the Civil War...

    .97
    
    Some of us know that, Steve.  But Lincoln made it the central issue in
    order to fuel indignation in the North and thereby keep the volunteers
    coming and keep the populace, whose enthusiasm for the war was fading
    daily, fired up.

    <--- Actually, my comment was mainly a response to .90.  It would seem
    that I forgot to add a "re:".  8^)
    
    
    I consider the Civil War to have been the beginning of the end of
    States' Rights, 10th Amendment notwithstanding. 
    
    
    
    -steve

 Snarf

      <<< Note 505.96 by SMURF::BINDER "Night's candles are burnt out." >>>

    First of all, I agree with one of the earlier replies that Lincoln 
    had to act to preserve the Union, and even if he had not, his 
    replacement would have.  Feeling to preserve the Union was very strong.

    RE: "its sequel"

    You have done a good job of showing that the Civil War and its aftermath
    were a period of sudden, violent change, but I think that you are 
    ignoring the value of the struggle, namely the end of slavery.  Yes, 
    the KKK and Jim Crow period came after, but after that came the Civil
    Rights movement.  And while we still have a ways to go toward full and
    equal rights for all citizens, it is a far cry from slavery.  

    If slavery had been allowed to die in the Confederate States of America,
    then it is entirely possible that free blacks, in the South at least,
    would still be second-class citizens to this day.

    Furthermore, by the end of the war, the country was still united, the
    North was heavily industrialized, and the men who were part of the war
    had seen new places.  All of these consequences set the stage for 
    great expansion and put the United States in a position to be a major
    player in world events.

    One of the extraordinary things about the American Civil War was that
    after the years of bloody fighting, the Nation healed quite quickly.
    In other countries, the losing side would take to the hills for years
    of guerrilla warfare and martial law.  It didn't happen that way. 
    The night before General Lee was to surrender to Grant, one of his 
    officers came to him to suggest that he not surrender at all and that
    each man take his gun and run for the hills.  General Lee wouldn't hear
    of it.  Apparently Lee reminded his men that they were fighting for the
    right to be left alone, and they couldn't do that as bushwhackers.
    After the surrender, Grant sent food to Lee's men and asked that his 
    troops not fire their guns in celebration.  He reminded his officers 
    that the men of the Army of Northern Virginia were now fellow citizens.
    Not a bad way to end years of civil war.

 Al Gore blending into the scenery, people, Al Gore Blending into the Scenery!

    
    re:.96
    
    > How about race riots in the 1990s?  All of these
    > things are parts of the sequel of the war.  
    
    Could you expand on this please.
    

      <<< Note 505.98 by SMURF::BINDER "Night's candles are burnt out." >>>

>   Some of us know that, Steve.  But Lincoln made it the central issue in
>   order to fuel indignation in the North and thereby keep the volunteers
>   coming and keep the populace, whose enthusiasm for the war was fading
>   daily, fired up.

Yes, but his primary motivation for the Emancipation Proclamation was to
keep Britain and France from recognizing the Confederacy and stepping in 
to establish peace between the two countries.  At that point in the war,
it looked like a stalemate.  Lincoln said, "We must change the rules or 
risk losing the game."

I believe that Lincoln also said, "If I could preserve the Union and not
free one slave, I would do that.  If I could save the Union and free all
slaves, I would do that.  And if I could save the Union and free some 
slaves and not others, I would do that, too."

RE: "keep the volunteers coming"

By that point in the war, both North and South were drafting soldiers.  
The New York Draft riots are a testament to the popularity of that idea.

    .101
    
    You're entitled to your opinion.  I'm entitled to mine.
    
    But I am compelled to comment on your suggestion that the country
    healed quickly.  You, my friend, are apparently incredibly na�ve.  It
    did not heal quickly, in fact, it has NOT YET healed.  It will not have
    healed until EVERY citizen is equal, not only under the law but also in
    the eyes of EVERY OTHER citizen.  Not that we're all capable of the
    same things - that's not the point, and I'm sure you know it - but
    rather that EVERY ONE of us look on EVERY OTHER ONE of us and see
    someone who, by the very fact of being a human being, is deserving of
    all the same rights and privileges.
    
    The peripheral fact that soldiers treted other soldiers with respect
    has little bearing on how civilians treated, and continue to treat,
    other civilians.  Soldiers learn honor - they learn to respect a worthy
    opponent.  Civilians, sadly, don't.  Civilians learn to defame and
    denigrate any and all opponents, in whatever way possible.

    
    re: .102
    
    Well Jim... You're seeing a perfect example of that here...
    
    AlGore just blends into the constant White House ratholes that are all
    about!!!

    
      By the way, if we're going to refight the War of the Rebellion,
     right here in the 'Box (and why not, we've done everything else !),
     we couldn't be more apropos.  The US Postal Service has just issued
     a full series of Civil War comemorative 32 cent stamps, of that
     era's great people and events, from both sections : Lincoln, Lee,
     Sherman, Jeff Davis, Gettysburg, etc.  "Once divided, now perforated"
     opines the wallposter of them.
    
      As you can tell, I'm personally an unreprentent Yankee, who would
     have marched with Sherman to the sea, given the chance.  However, as
     the men of each section were, I'd have been surprised at the very
     brave fight the other side was willing to put up, over matters of
     moral difference.
    
      bb

          <<< Note 505.102 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Learning to lean" >>>

> Al Gore blending into the scenery, people, Al Gore Blending into the Scenery!

Yes, but there's not much to say about that subject.

He is blending into the scenery, but at least he's not getting lost in the 
woods, again.
He can be replaced by a life-sized photograph.
He is great at funerals, but there haven't been any, lately.
He is a dead-end on the information superhighway.
He has little input into Whitehouse policy (which is their loss, IMHO).
His homework projects are all done.
He will be called upon to attack the Administration's critics.

In short, he is a typical VP.

I don't particularly like Gore's politics or his leadership style, but I 
respect his abilities, his political savvy, and his character.  If President
Clinton would do what LBJ did and decline to run again, an Gore-for-President
campaign would be tough to beat.

    >> I agree with one of the earlier replies that Lincoln 
    >> had to act to preserve the Union, 
    
    Why did Lincoln have to act to preserve the Union?
    
    
    >> Feeling to preserve the Union was very strong.
    
    Again, why?
    
    
    These are fundamental assumptions upon which the entire Civil War
    rests.  If we accept these, we've bought into the whole mess.  So
    I'm compelled to question these assumptions and ask:  Why should
    a group of states be forced to remain in a politicial entity that
    they no longer wish to be associated with?  What is so unacceptable
    about this, that it demands a response involving half a million deaths?
    
    How would things be so terribly different today if Lincoln had simply
    let the states secede?  Why was it so imperative to force these states
    to remain as part of the U.S.A.?
    
    Chris

    
> Yes, but his primary motivation for the Emancipation Proclamation was to
> keep Britain and France from recognizing the Confederacy and stepping in 
    
    Actually, it was closer to war with the North than "establishing
    peace". However, I doubt that Lincoln cared much about outside
    interference at this point.  
    
    Opinion on the Civil War was very divided in Britain, with the upper
    classes supporting the "Southern gentleman" and hoping for a boost to
    free trade and the working classes firmly on the side of the
    Northerners.   The South seemed to get more political support than the
    North because Britains Northern Mills required cotton from the US
    South.
    
    Cabinet member Gladstone made a huge political gaffe in a speech that
    seemed to indicate that Britain supported the South but the Gov't
    denied it vehemently.  The North then stopped a British ship in
    mid-atlantic and arrested two Southern diplomats on their way to
    London.  Britain very nearly went to war with the North over this
    incident and demanded the return of the diplomats.  The North handed
    them over, but without the demanded apology.
    
    There were further incidents over shipping, trade and arms supply
    which eventually escalated into an odd incident whereby the US billed
    Britain for damage caused to the Northern war effort.   Britain was
    forced to Pay $15,000,000 based on the Geneva repearations settlement
    in 1872.
    
    

     <<< Note 505.105 by SMURF::BINDER "Night's candles are burnt out." >>>

>   But I am compelled to comment on your suggestion that the country
>   healed quickly.  You, my friend, are apparently incredibly na�ve.  It
>   did not heal quickly, in fact, it has NOT YET healed.  It will not have
>   healed until EVERY citizen is equal, not only under the law but also in
>   the eyes of EVERY OTHER citizen.  Not that we're all capable of the
>   same things - that's not the point, and I'm sure you know it - but
>   rather that EVERY ONE of us look on EVERY OTHER ONE of us and see
>   someone who, by the very fact of being a human being, is deserving of
>   all the same rights and privileges.

I have already acknowledged the fact that there is still more to be done.
What I said in .101 was: "And while we still have a ways to go toward full 
and equal rights for all citizens, it is a far cry from slavery."

However, I do not see that "healing" means that all citizens must be equal.
Healing from a civil war for some may mean simply that armies are disbanded, 
fighting stops, government and law return to pre-war standards, and each
side accepts the other as citizens again.  The war was started to preserve
or separate from the Union.  When the war was over, this issue was settled.
After the armies surrendered and the Confederate governement disbanded, 
things became remarkably peaceful in a short period of time.

Furthermore, if we are to believe that 100% equal rights are needed for 
there to be healing, then we also have to believe that the process toward 
equal rights was somehow derailed by the war.  Far from it.  I think that
one can make a good case that the natural development towards equal rights
would be very difficult in a Confederate States of America.


>   The peripheral fact that soldiers treted other soldiers with respect
>   has little bearing on how civilians treated, and continue to treat,
>   other civilians.  Soldiers learn honor - they learn to respect a worthy
>   opponent.  Civilians, sadly, don't.  Civilians learn to defame and
>   denigrate any and all opponents, in whatever way possible.

Once the armies disbanded, the soldiers became citizens.  The citizens of
the North extracted very little retribution from the South.  The South was
not treated like conquered territory.  For all the abuses that took place 
during Reconstruction, which was quite short, the people of the South fared 
much better than the losers in other civil wars.  After the Johnson impeachment
proceedings, the country moved toward expansion.

After all the years of bloody fighting, it is hard to imagine that things 
would become so peaceful so quickly.

RE: "Civilians learn to defame and denigrate any and all opponents, in 
    whatever way possible."

Ah, yes, the familiar cry for more civility in discourse.
Ironically, SOAPBOX has volumes on this subject.

By all means, let us have more civility and good manners.
Not calling someone "incredibly na�ve" might be a start.  ;^)

    .112
    
    > Healing from a civil war for some may mean simply that armies are
    > disbanded,  fighting stops, government and law return to pre-war
    > standards, and each side accepts the other as citizens again.
    
    The Union army has not been disbanded.  Government and law have not
    returned, not will they ever return, to prewar standards.  Not all of
    the people of EITHER side, to this day, accept the other side's people
    as full, righteous citizens.  You need only spend some time in the deep
    South to see, and come to feel, the abiding discontent there.
    
    > The war was started to preserve
    > or separate from the Union.  When the war was over, this issue was
    > settled.
    
    Not to the satisfaction of thousands of peopl eon both sides of the
    Mason-Dixon line.  Settlement by force of arms is not settlement in the
    hearts of the people.  is this a nation of military law or of rule by
    the people?
    
    > After the armies surrendered and the Confederate governement disbanded, 
    > things became remarkably peaceful in a short period of time.

    Sure.  With armed Federals standing over the people of the South.
    
    > Furthermore, if we are to believe that 100% equal rights are needed for 
    > there to be healing, then we also have to believe that the process
    > toward  equal rights was somehow derailed by the war.  Far from it.  I
    > think that one can make a good case that the natural development
    > towards equal rights would be very difficult in a Confederate States of
    > America.

    I think you are mistaken.  People can easily come to accept, in a
    century, much that grows upon them slowly.  Some Southern whites had
    learned to treat their slaves well, some had learned to educate them
    (in violation of the law), some had evben begun to pay them a token
    amount, and some - heaven forfend! - had even voluntarily freed them. 
    But when, by fiat, slavery was ended (and only in the rebellious
    territories, thus making the decree all the more unpalatable), the
    people reacted predictably, by clinging ever more tightly to that which
    was being denied them by a foreign despot under force of arms.  The EP
    made things WORSE, not BETTER.  Today it is likely that, had the war
    not been fought, blacks would have become equal by the methods they
    themselves chose to use - protest, education, and honest hard work. 
    With less resistance and less festering hatred all around.
    
    > By all means, let us have more civility and good manners.
    > Not calling someone "incredibly na�ve" might be a start.  ;^)

    I calls 'em the say I sees 'em.  I didn't call you a jackass, I called
    you na�ve.  The former is just too bad; the latter is curable by
    education.  Get educated.  And, while you're at it, age a few years. 
    You might be surprised to learn, as I have learned, that your point of
    view is affected somewhat by the number of years you can notch up on
    the backyard fence.

     <<< Note 505.105 by SMURF::BINDER "Night's candles are burnt out." >>>


>    You're entitled to your opinion.  I'm entitled to mine.

Don't do it, Dick! Put that stone down!
    
>    But I am compelled to comment on your suggestion that the country
>    healed quickly.  

Drop the rock, pal! You know the saying...

>	You, my friend, are apparently incredibly na�ve.  It

Aw, jeez, now you've gone and done it!

> Note 505.55:

>    Chris is right, you see.  Had the war not been fought, or - given that
>    the war was indeed fought - had slavery not been made the central issue
>    from the Union point of view in order to keep those volunteers coming,
>    slavery would have fallen of its own weight - the same way it fell in
>    Europe some thousand years ago.  And had that happened, racism would
>    not be anything like so serious a problem as it is; people resent
>    having things shoved down their throats that they could well have
>    learned to like had they partaken at their own speed.

Now who's naive? Racism would be basically a non-issue today had we not 
fought the war? Um, last time I looked, itwernt the south that's had all 
the race-relations problems. In fact, since MLK, where have *all* the riots 
occurred? Watts. Detroit. Chicago. New York. Do I hear Montgomery? No. Do I 
hear Atlanta? No. I doesn't sound like bitter southern whites that's causing 
our racial ills. It sounds like entrenched power that isn't about to 
relinquish the reins in the name of some highfaloot'n notion as 
"equality," whether it's forced on them or *not*.

You may find fifty years or so of a mans life continuing to be held in 
bondage as a worthwhile gamble to see your prediction of racial harmony 
come true. I do not. And I hope you, in all your encyclopedic knowledge,
never stumble on the secret to inventing a time machine. ;->

Tom

    .114
    
    It is my contention that in the basic hatreds of today we are reaping
    what we sowed during and after Reconstruction.  The mindset was born in
    the South, and I believe that it would have had far less reason to be
    born had things not been brought to a violent head by the war.  You are
    entitled to your opinion.

       <<< Note 505.110 by DECWIN::RALTO "Stay in bed, float upstream" >>>
                          -< Questioning assumptions >-

If Lincoln, as President, had not acted, he probably would have been
impeached: feelings at the time ran very high.  I remember Grant asked 
his second in command what terms he should ask for in the surrender of 
Fort Donaldson.  The officer replied, "No term for the damned rebels."  

For someone to vote to break away from the United States would appear
to be an act of treason -- at least most Northerners and some Southerners
thought so at the time.  Jefferson Davis and members of his cabinet were 
accused of that after the war.

You can question the validity of the right of a state to withdraw from
the Union, but I don't see much point.  Based on everything that I have 
read from those days, the overwhelming majority in the North did not 
believe that states had a right to secede, and they were willing to pay
a very high price to decide the issue.


>   Why should a group of states be forced to remain in a politicial 
>   entity that they no longer wish to be associated with?

The short answer, for me, would be that people have the right to renounce 
citizenship.  For someone to work toward or vote for a state to leave the
United States would violate their individual responsibilities as citizens
of their country.  The act of secession would damage the country and would 
force others in the state to leave their homes or cease being citizens.

    
>   How would things be so terribly different today if Lincoln had simply
>   let the states secede?

Yes, because many people, IMHO, do not keep their word, their commitments.
Furthermore, citizenship appears to be an old-fashioned idea for many (IMHO).
And finally, people will point to the breakup of the USSR as an example.
(And I would not agree.)


>   Why was it so imperative to force these states to remain as part of 
>   the U.S.A.?

It may have been a good thing.  The country emerged from the war as a strong,
united country with tremendous energy and industrial capacity, certainly 
stronger than two separate countries.  Given our involvement in World War 
I and World War II, this was probably a good thing.

>       <<< Note 505.110 by DECWIN::RALTO "Stay in bed, float upstream" >>>
>    rests.  If we accept these, we've bought into the whole mess.  So
>    I'm compelled to question these assumptions and ask:  Why should
>    a group of states be forced to remain in a politicial entity that
>    they no longer wish to be associated with?  What is so unacceptable
>    about this, that it demands a response involving half a million deaths?

They shouldn't necessarily, in fact our Declaration of Independence says they
shouldn't. But once they start firing on forts and garrisons of that
political entity, anything goes. The feeling among Sherman's troops on
reaching Charleston toward the end of the war was "this is where treason
started, and this is where it will end". Not unlike Pearl Harbor in effect...

    .116
    
    > You can question the validity of the right of a state to withdraw from
    > the Union, but I don't see much point.  Based on everything that I have 
    > read from those days, the overwhelming majority in the North did not 
    > believe that states had a right to secede, and they were willing to pay
    > a very high price to decide the issue.

    From everything I have read from the 1760s and 1770s, I'm convinced
    that the overwhelming majority of the American colonists did not want
    to brek away from England.  But that's okay, because the few hotheads
    who fomented treasonous rebellion happened to win their war.

    >> Why was it so imperative to force these states to remain as part of
    >> the U.S.A.?

    > It may have been a good thing.  The country emerged from the war as a
    > strong, united country with tremendous energy and industrial capacity,
    > certainly  stronger than two separate countries.  Given our involvement
    > in World War  I and World War II, this was probably a good thing.

    But who is to say that, had the Confedrate States been allowed to form
    their own country, there would even have BEEN a WWI or a WWII?  'Sfack
    that part of the reason for WWII was the U.S.'s high-handed refusal to
    let their WWI allies, the Japanese, have naval parity.  The fact that
    the U.S. forced Japan to back down as a result of our possession of
    information from a decrypted secret Japanese diplomatic message only
    rubbed salt in the wound.  Had this nation been different, the events
    after WWI might too ahv been different.

    .117
    
    The firing on Fort Sumter was in direct response to an attempt by the
    Federals to resupply the fort by sea.  The fort was in Confederate
    territory, and its commandant had been ordered by the army of the
    nation whose territory he was violating to abandon the fort - had he
    done so, there would have been no firing.  The Federal resupply effort
    was thus the first act of war, not the firing by the shore batteries.

    OBTW, could we maybe carry this ACW discussion to the SMURF::CIVIL_WAR
    file and let AlGore fade into the woodwork on his own merit?  Press KP7
    or Select to add SMURF::CIVIL_WAR to your notebook.

    Apparently, Al Gore has blended into the scenery of this note.
    
    Can you find Al Gore in this line of "discussion".
    
    Answer at bottom right.
    
    
    
    
    							Answer: No.

    
    >Can you find Al Gore in this line of "discussion".
    
    
    
    Right there at the top!!!   Al Gore blending into the scenery?  See???
    
    
    Bzzzzzzzzt!! You lose!!

    re: Al Gore relevance
    
    Simple... if Lincoln had simply left the C.S.A. alone, neither
    Al Gore or his boss would be in office now!
    
    Chris

    .124
    
    > neither
    > Al Gore or his boss
              ^^
    nor.
    
    NNTTM.

    .123
    
    You mean Hillary ?

     <<< Note 505.113 by SMURF::BINDER "Night's candles are burnt out." >>>

>   The Union army has not been disbanded.

Those who were drafted were mustered out pretty quickly.  The Army of the 
Potomac and the Army of Northern Virginia are no more.  Yes, there is a
United States Army.  So what?  There was a United States Army before the
war, too.


>   Government and law have not returned, not will they ever return, to 
>   prewar standards.  

Members of the Confederacy sent Senators and Congressmen to Washington.
Federal courts reopened in the South.  Has the law changed since then?
Of course.  Men from the South have even been elected President: Carter
and Clinton.  (sigh)  


>   Not all of the people of EITHER side, to this day, accept the other 
>   side's people as full, righteous citizens.

Yeah, and there are those who believe the earth is flat.

[What's a "righteous" citizen?  I've heard lots of "self-righteous" people, 
but . . . Oh, never mind!]


>   You need only spend some time in the deep South to see, and come to 
>   feel, the abiding discontent there.

Been there.  Done that.  I was born and raised in Tennessee.  My parents
and grandparents are from Alabama.  The only "abiding discontent" I remember
was that the average person thought that most of the <r.o> politicans and
lobbyists in Washington D.C. were out of their minds.  Funny thing, people 
in New Hampshire have pretty much the same impression.

    
>   Not to the satisfaction of thousands of peopl eon both sides of the
>   Mason-Dixon line.  Settlement by force of arms is not settlement in the
>   hearts of the people.  is this a nation of military law or of rule by
>   the people?

I think that if you look at the writings of the poeple at that time, you
will find that the matter was very much settled.  If it had not been, we
probably would have had a long, bloody history of back-alley fighting,
as did many civil wars throughout the world.

There is a odd history of military "justice" used during the American 
Civil War.  However, it is a Federal Court, not a military court, that hears 
cases in the South, and that was re-established quickly after the war.


>   Sure.  With armed Federals standing over the people of the South.

I think that you will find that the Union Army did not occupy the South
very long at all.

    
>   I think you are mistaken.  People can easily come to accept, in a
>   century, much that grows upon them slowly.  Some Southern whites had
>   learned to treat their slaves well, some had learned to educate them
>   (in violation of the law), some had evben begun to pay them a token
>   amount, and some - heaven forfend! - had even voluntarily freed them. 
>   But when, by fiat, slavery was ended (and only in the rebellious
>   territories, thus making the decree all the more unpalatable), the
>   people reacted predictably, by clinging ever more tightly to that which
>   was being denied them by a foreign despot under force of arms.  The EP
>   made things WORSE, not BETTER.  Today it is likely that, had the war
>   not been fought, blacks would have become equal by the methods they
>   themselves chose to use - protest, education, and honest hard work. 
>   With less resistance and less festering hatred all around.

You are correct that a minority of slave owners did, in fact, treat slaves
well and free them.  You could have made the point that the manjority of
those in the South did not own slaves.  Of course, then you have a problem
with the rest of your paragraph concerning people digging in.  Those who
supported the Confederacy did so for a variety of reasons.  Robert E. Lee
joined the Cause because his home state of Virginia had seceded.  Others 
simply believed in States Rights, including the right to secede.  Most of
those who fought the battles did not own slaves (because they were less
well off and could not avoid the draft).  On that basis, the EP does not
appear to be of great significance.

One of the other weaknesses in your line of reasoning is that you are
basing the outcome on what the minority were doing.  Since they were in
the minority, their ability to change history was limited.

Slavery would have ended simply because it was inefficient.  I have yet
to see that a case can be made that once slavery had ended, black people
would have been treated as anything but second-class citizens.  Certainly
the start of the process -- the end of slavery -- would have been delayed.

Without the protection of Federal law, many of the leaders of the Civil
Rights movement would be dead.  I base that conclusion on the fact that the
FBI investigated and arrested many who conspired to violate the 
Constitutional rights of the civil rights leaders.  I also base that on the 
Federal marshals and National Guard troops that enforced various court 
orders during that period.  I image that the Confederates States of America,
today, would be much like the South Africa of, say, a few years ago.  In
fact, with a CFA and South Africa supporting each other, the history of
South Africa may be very different.

    
RE: age and education

Age is not always an advantage.  A tall redwood may be very old, but its
still dumb as a post.

To gain experience, people need to get around, keep their eyes and ears open,
stay open to new ideas, and continually reflect on their old values.

In terms of education, I think that I have a pretty good understanding of 
those days.  The people of that time did a remarkable job.

     <<< Note 505.118 by SMURF::BINDER "Night's candles are burnt out." >>>

>   From everything I have read from the 1760s and 1770s, I'm convinced
>   that the overwhelming majority of the American colonists did not want
>   to brek away from England.  But that's okay, because the few hotheads
>   who fomented treasonous rebellion happened to win their war.

Correct.  History is writen by the winning side.


>   But who is to say that, had the Confedrate States been allowed to form
>   their own country, there would even have BEEN a WWI or a WWII?

It's a matter of personal opinion, but certainly if it had, a stong United
States would/could be very handy.  If the CSA had remained, I don't see that
our dealings with Japan would have been different.  I would also "guess"
that the CSA would be very isolationist and free-trade.  Therefore, the
colonial and diplomatic moves that led to WW I would remain valid concerns.

     <<< Note 505.120 by SMURF::BINDER "Night's candles are burnt out." >>>
                    -< A better venue for this discussion? >-

>   OBTW, could we maybe carry this ACW discussion to the SMURF::CIVIL_WAR
>   file and let AlGore fade into the woodwork on his own merit?  Press KP7
>   or Select to add SMURF::CIVIL_WAR to your notebook.

(sigh) If we must carry on at all . . .

    Who is Al Gore anyway and what did he have to do with the Civil War?? 
    :)
    
    ...Tom

    > Read the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution, DougO.  The
    > right to secede is implicitly reserved to the States because it is
    > neither enumerated as being reserved to the Fed nor explicitly
    > prohibited.  
    
    That's incredibly weak.  It is "implicit" in the very existence of the
    Constitution that chartered the government of the UNITED STATES that
    the STATES were UNITED.  No invented "right to secede" could possibly
    override that- though anti-Federalists have argued it for 130 years.
    You are of course entitled to think differently.  I still consider your
    imputation to Lincoln to reflect your own prejudice and your own
    reading rather than an honest historical appraisal of how he saw his
    responsibilities, to preserve the Union that the Constitution
    established.
    
    DougO

    
    Gee, I thought all the discussion regarding the War of Northern
    Aggression had been moved to SMURF::CIVIL_WAR 

    Dan

    those who have time to note in lots of conferences should enjoy their
    opportunity.  Me, I'm only online briefly at best these days.
    
    DougO

    .133
    
    >        -< I'm not chasing the discussion to another file. >-
    
    Tough noogies.

    Right, Binder, so stay here and argue like a man who dares denigrate
    the ethical sensibilities of the leading American of his day, the
    President, with a historical revisionism so biased that you turn my
    stomach.  A FOOL, was he?  You pathetic little man.
    
    DougO

> the leading American of his day, the President

Phew. Good thing I backtracked a bit, DougO. I haven't been following
the string and I thought for a minute you mighta been referring to Slick!

    And since then I find Binder castigating Ralston for calling BOXERS
    fools, which charge in some cases Binder even knows to be true; and yet
    he can't see the supreme arrogance he takes upon himself for hurling
    the same epithet at Lincoln.  Revolting.
    
    DougO

    
    Other than that, Mrs. Olson, how did you like the play ?

    
      So, Dick, where do you fly your CSA flag ?  bb

    .137
    
    "The play, I remember, pleased not the millions."
    
    O most noble Signor Olson, arbiter of what be called fair or ill in
    this so lovely place, wilt thou forgive my sin.
    
    Grow up, Olson.  This is SOAPBOX.

    >Grow up, Olson.  This is SOAPBOX.
    
    soapbox, where the revisionist historian calls the dead President "fool".
    
    That's no excuse, Binder.  You have breeched the standards of fair-minded
    evaluation to which you normally adhere, in your atrocious calumny of
    Lincoln, and I'll hold you responsible.  A sad day when you cannot
    admit your error, screeching "This is SOAPBOX".  That's no excuse.
    
    DougO

    breached. 

    
      So, what wuz the Latin saying John Wilkes Binder called out to
     the crowd after leaping to the stage of Ford's Theatre ?
    
      bb

    
    Sic semper tyrannis, or some such.
    
    

    Sic Semper Soapboxis.

    John Wilkes Binder, that has a ring to it.
    
    DougO

    .141
    
    > and I'll hold you responsible.
    
    Call me irresponsible,
    Call me unreliable,
    Yes, it's undeliably true,
    I'm irresponsibly mad for yo-o-ou.
    
    FYI, however, I have breached no standards of fair-minded evaluation. 
    I believe Lincoln's decision to have been egregiously wrongheaded, and
    I further believe that his - to my mind, foolish - adherence to his
    mistake caused more than a million unnecessary deaths.  Were I to hold
    this position having engaged in no study or intellectual discourse, you
    might rightly call me lacking in fair-mindedness.  I have not done so,
    and I am - as you are - entitled to hold an opinion, EVEN ONE THAT IS
    DEFAMATORY to someone you happen (apparently) to admire.  If you are
    not adult enough to handle this level of disagreement, then I'll thank
    you to go have your tantrum elsewhere.

    
    re .148:
    
    Watch it.

    
    Hasta la vista, Abey.
    

     <<< Note 505.148 by SMURF::BINDER "Night's candles are burnt out." >>>

>   I believe Lincoln's decision to have been egregiously wrongheaded, 

If you believe that there is an implied right to secede in the Constitution,
then you have support for this idea.


>   I further believe that his - to my mind, foolish - adherence to his
>   mistake caused more than a million unnecessary deaths.

If Lincoln, as the President, was the only person who was willing to go to
war to preserve the Union or if Lincoln used his position as President to
influence enough people to make the war possible, then you can support this
opinion as well.  I contend, that if you look at the writings of the times,
the tremendous number of volunteers who came to fight for the Union, and 
the huge resources that the North brought to the conflict, I think that the
push for war could not be stopped.  

Even if Lincoln had lobbied against the war and refused to issue the orders 
necessary to fight it, it would be like stepping into the path of an 
on-coming train.  I believe that he would have been impeached for treason.
Even if he hadn't, Congress could have passed laws making war impossible to 
avoid (e.g. Federal spending bills that call for building forts in CSA
territory).  The Supreme Court might have gotten involved, but given their 
decisions leading up to the war, I can't see that they would vote in favor 
of the Confederacy.  Even if none of these things happeneed, the next 
Presidential election would have been, in effect, a referendum on a war on 
the Confederacy.  (Even after years of civil war, Lincoln was reelected.
That election was a referendum on the war.  Even the Army of the Potomac 
voted for Lincoln -- instead of McClelland, their former commander.)

Therefore, it is difficult to believe that Lincoln's decisions caused a
million deaths.  If you have analysis to show otherwise, please present it.
I just don't see enough facts to support this conclusion.

    .151
    
    If 20,000 volunteers shoot themselves in the head, will that be proof
    sufficient for you to believe that shooting yourself in the head is the
    right thing to do?

    First of all, this is the claim about Lincoln that I find so egregious.
    
    .84> I call him a fool because, by failing to accept the full meaning of
    > those Amendments, he caused far more suffering by his actions than
    > would have been caused by inaction - in the whole time since the war. 
    
    The "full meaning" of those amendments in YOUR mind is not that of any
    established law or precedent.  The Supreme Court of that time found no
    unconstitutionality in Lincoln's war to preserve the union.  Many
    scholars and historians ever since also do not agree with that
    assessment.  It is certainly no absolute.  At best, the contention that
    the ninth and tenth amendments preserve some invented notion of a "right
    to secede" for the states in direct defiance of the over-riding purpose
    of the Constitution itself- to unite the states- is a revisionist
    interpretation that singularly fails to convince, 135 years later.
    You cannot pretend that there is any agreement among any great majority
    of scholars in the field that the ninth and the tenth mean what you
    wish they meant.  Yet it requires just this pretense- that there is no
    other interpretation of Lincoln's sworn duty to the Constitution, than
    yours- which alone justifies your libel.  
    
    > FYI, however, I have breached no standards of fair-minded evaluation. 
    
    Yes, you have.  By insisting that your own evaluation of the meaning of
    those amendments is absolute, you deny that Lincoln was upholding his
    vows and his principles to the fullest extent he could see.  He didn't
    see it your way, Binder.  That doesn't make him a fool.
    
    >I am - as you are - entitled to hold an opinion
    
    which brings me to the second aspect of this little contretemps.
    
    > It is clear to even the most casual observer, let alone the
    > astute BoxIntelligentsia, that you judge others by your own standards
    > and, in so doing, declare them irrational fools.   You should, it
    > stands to reason, have no objection to being yourself judged by others'
    > standards, since that mode of assessment is itself according to your
    > own standards. 
    
    Tell us how it is, Binder, that you can so pointedly castigate Ralston
    in the above terms for calling someone a fool, yet fail to recognize
    that it applies to you as well?  You haven't even tried to answer this.
    
    DougO

     <<< Note 505.152 by SMURF::BINDER "Night's candles are burnt out." >>>

>   If 20,000 volunteers shoot themselves in the head, will that be proof
>   sufficient for you to believe that shooting yourself in the head is the
>   right thing to do?

No, of course not.

Your question is nonsense and has nothing to do with the subject.

However, if 20,000 volunteers shoot themselves in the head out of a 
population of, say, 40,000 people, or if 20,000 people shot themselves 
in the same day or at the same location, I think that that would be 
sufficient evidence to show that something very interesting was happening.  
I imagine that those 20,000 people felt very strongly about something.

    
    > then I'll thank you to go have your tantrum elsewhere.
    
    Do we have a tantrum note?

    .154
    
    >> I have breached no standards...
    
    > Yes, you have.  By insisting that your own evaluation of the meaning of
    > those amendments is absolute, you deny that Lincoln was upholding his
    > vows and his principles to the fullest extent he could see.
    
    No, you silly goose, I do not deny what you claim.  I say that his view
    of the situation, such that it impelled him to uphold his vows and his
    principles, was not the same as mine.  If you don't like my
    "revisionist libel," that's your problem.  I am neither the first nor
    the last to call an honored historical figure a fool.  I suppose you'd
    call the people who decry Tom�s de Torquemada's singleminded attempts
    to extirpate Jewry from Spain, libelous revisionists, too, because it's
    a fact that for some hundreds of years after his death he was honored
    by Christendom.

    >> ...you deny that Lincoln was upholding his vows and his principles 
    >> to the fullest extent he could see. 
    > 
    > ...I do not deny what you claim. I say that his view of the
    > situation, such that it impelled him to uphold his vows and his
    > principles, was not the same as mine. 
    
    You said he was a fool because his view of the Constitution doesn't
    agree with yours (that "full meaning" nonsense of the 9th and 10th.)
    
    > If you don't like my "revisionist libel,"
    
    I don't, which is why I call your judgement into question.
    Lincoln was no fool.
    
    DougO

    	Were there any SCOTUS justices from southern states at the 
    	time of the Civil war?  What happened to them?  Were they kicked
    	out?  Did they renounce Confederate citizenship and declare
    	USA allegiance?

    This is all Mr. Martin's fault. If he hadn't posted .11, this never
    would have started.

    Further to my reply to .154
    
    > The Supreme Court of that time...
    
    ...was not consulted, because Lincoln knew he'd lose.  The Court was
    loaded with Whigs.
    
    I will discuss this thread no further here - if you really care about
    it, take the discussion to SMURF::CIVIL_WAR.  And do try to be civil.

>The Court was loaded with Whigs.

Powdered?  Just like England?

    Why not discuss it here? Is this soapbox, or is it not?

    Dick keeps ducking because he's getting drubbed.  That high-and-mighty
    tone he took with Ralston turned around and bit him in the tail when he
    took his own arrogant judgement of Lincoln to ridiculous heights.
    
    Sure, go on and prattle in some other conference, Dick.  We know why.
    
    DougO

    .164
    
    No, you don't.  But if it makes you feel good to think that you do, far
    be it from me to disabuse you.

    right.
    
    DougO

    .166
    
    >           -< Dick Binder blending into the scenery... >-
    
    Not on your life, you pompous left-coast left-wyng nutter.  I told you
    I had reasons that you don't understand for ceasing my participation in
    one specific discursive thread here.  I did, and do, have such reasons. 
    That you are incapable of comprehending that there might be motives not
    readily apparent for such a decision is not my problem.  I suggest you
    go pester someone who thinks you're witty.  I don't.

    and to think he was just trying to chide *me* for 'tantrums'.
    
    I think I'll put that little gem in the tantrum note.
    
    DougO

     <<< Note 505.161 by SMURF::BINDER "Night's candles are burnt out." >>>

>   ...was not consulted, because Lincoln knew he'd lose.  The Court was
>   loaded with Whigs.

Not only, Whigs, but Southern Whigs (hence Dred Scott).  However, notice 
that for all the special powers that Lincoln used (e.g. appointing a
military governor in TN), no one ever challenged it in the courts.  I 
believe that Lincoln didn't have to simply because the push for war was
too strong.  After Bleeding Kansas and John Brown, the country was eager.
Given the enthusiasm for war, early in his administration, as long as he
worked toward restoring the Union, he got whatever resources he needed.
His biggest political problems -- both inside and outside his cabinet --
in those early days appear to be from the radicals and abolitionists.

    
    The new Civil War: this time it's East vs. West, and divided by the
    Manson/Nixon line.
    
    ;^)

    so, dougo, is it any less arrogant to assume that someone who wishes
    no further discourse with you on a particular subject is soley due to
    your superiour debating skills?  where is that note about things that
    make me gak......
    
    imagine, a thinking man not wanting to have a discussion with you, how
    terribly insulted you must feel.....

    Someone got told. 8^)

    
    > imagine, a thinking man not wanting to have a discussion with you, how
    > terribly insulted you must feel.....

    OOOWWWWWW, Cold shot 'tine, really cold....

    You are a DANGEROUS WOMAN !

    :-)
    Dan

    
    re: .173
    
    >You are a DANGEROUS WOMAN !
    
    
    She's a heck of a lot more than that, young man!!!
    

    
    > >You are a DANGEROUS WOMAN !
    > 
    > She's a heck of a lot more than that, young man!!!
    
    I'll say!  
    
    This may be crass but....
    
    VAVAVAVOOOOOM ! ! ! ! !
    
    ;->
    Dan

    > so, dougo, is it any less arrogant to assume that someone who wishes
    > no further discourse with you on a particular subject is soley due to
    > your superiour debating skills? 
    
    Lessee, we're comparing my arrogance with assumptions about why 
    Binder ducked and ran, wiv Binder's arrogance about judging the 
    16th President with 130 years of hindsight to butress his judgement.
    
    Nah, I don't think my arrogance compares.  Mine is much less in this
    instance.  Lincoln is a historical figure, judging him the act of a
    presumptuous fool.  Binder, on the other hand, is one simple boxer,
    more or less, and my assumptions about him don't amount to a
    repudiation of known historical interpretations shared by millions of
    people, many far better-informed than Dick.  My assumptions are clearly
    only my opinion.  Why, do you think my arrogance is greater than his?
    
    Or where you asking the question for rhetorical effect?
    
    > imagine, a thinking man not wanting to have a discussion with you, 
    > how terribly insulted you must feel.....
    
    ho ho.
    
    DougO
    
    ps- I'll be officially back from vacation on Monday, but I did want to
    stop in and say hello today.

    	I guess you haven't come across enough sleeping dogs on that
    	vacation...

    you want instead I should wander into the replay of SPAGA and get some
    miscreant to threaten my job again?
    
    DougO

    	Well, at least it's current...

    .176
    
    Did you manage to find Al Gore while you were on vacation ?  I think
    you kidnapped him from this Notes conference. Bad, bad Doug !
    
    ;^)

    
    > Binder ducked and ran....
    
    Errr, Doug, refresh my memory.  As I recall Mr. Binder, who is an
    arrogant old sot, suggested that you take this to another conference,
    and you refused.  It seems to me YOU were the one who whimped out.
    
    FWIW - Everytime I see this topic, I read it as "Al Gore Bleeding into 
    the Scenery".... It leaves a VERY ugly impression in my mind... :-|
    

    >> Binder ducked and ran....
    >
    > Errr, Doug, refresh my memory.  As I recall Mr. Binder, who is an
    > arrogant old sot, suggested that you take this to another conference,
    > and you refused. 
    
    Semantics.  "Ran from" this conference, "take it to" another
    conference.  Default is that topics are discussed in the forum 
    where they arise- it was here he uttered his calumny and here
    I challenged him upon it.
    
    Your memory is fine, merely your interpretation lacking.
    
    DougO

    
    hhhmmmmm Doug, you were given the opportunity to continue this
    discussion, but you declined.  The point goes to Mr. Binder.

    > hhhmmmmm Doug, you were given the opportunity to continue this
    > discussion, but you declined. 
    
    I declined?  I'm still here discussing it, ain't I?  A two-week
    vacation intervened, but I'm back now.  Who's missing?
    
    DougO

    
    > I declined?  I'm still here discussing it, ain't I?  A two-week
                             ^^^^
    > vacation intervened, but I'm back now.  Who's missing?
    
    You do have a problem.
    

    I'm conversing with a moron instead of the intended object of my scorn,
    but that's about it.
    
    DougO

    	Maybe you should try to heap some payback on that mean ol' Binder
    	dude for leaving you at the altar like this...

    see .176.
    
    DougO

    	Apparently you hit teflon with that one.  Does that still count?

    Teflon?  You mean since he hasn't responded?  That's his problem.
    
    Do you suppose that as Dick is still maintaining the fiction that 
    he'll only discuss his perfidious statement in some other conference, 
    I should therefore go haring off around the easynet after him?  No, I 
    prefer to stay here, point out that he made his comments here, and let
    the chips fall where they may.  The historical figure he slanders so
    casually is not one who cut and ran from hard issues.  I think we all
    know who the fool is.
    
    DougO

    	I agree with you on your point about Lincoln, but I agree
    	with Dick that if you want to discuss it further with him,
    	you'll have to go to the room in which he chooses to discuss
    	it.
    
    	As I see it, the chips have already fallen.
    
    	Yup, teflon -- because your "payback" has not flushed him
    	out, and apparently will not.

    This must be some new and obscure use of teflon that hasn't made the
    pop-lexicon yet.  Never mind, Joe.  If Binder is too bashful to stand
    by what he said here in soapbox, that's his problem.
    
    DougO

    	"that's his problem"
    
    	But by all appearances here, it is you who seem to have the
    	problem with it.

    yeah, seems to me that he's said what he needs/wants and by virtue of
    the fact that he isn't discussing it further, he IS standing by what
    he says.  DougO, I didn't expect meowski tactics from you....

    boy DougO, you must've done sumthin' awful bad to get all these nice
    folk mad at you... :-)

    And 'tine, I didn't expect you to duck the question I posed you when I
    answered yours so forthrightly last time you spoke in this topic.  You
    owe me an answer.
    
    DougO

    what I did, Chip, was pursue a scalawag.
    
    DougO

    
    > Do you suppose that as Dick is still maintaining the fiction that 
    > he'll only discuss his perfidious statement in some other conference, 
    > I should therefore go haring off around the easynet after him?  No, I 
    > prefer to stay here, point out that he made his comments here, and let
    > the chips fall where they may.
    
    whimp.
    
    > I think we all know who the fool is.
    
    Yup.

    DougO-
    
    Forgive me, I didn't get the impression from your writing that you were
    REALLY all that curious.  But since you are.....
    
    We (people) re-write history all the time.  We have learned many things
    in our school systems which we later find out to be total bollox. 
    Yes,  I'm sure there ARE many scholars, whose expertise on Mr. Lincoln
    far exceeds that of Mr. Binder.  But to call him arrogant for having
    opinions which reflect badly on a president whom history has taught us
    was a hero seems short-sighted and arrogant to me.  (Please keep in
    mind I hadn't followed the entire conversation; that is to say I don't
    know what it is Dick said which caused this cat-fight between you two,
    I just saw your note on Dick's arrogance, and backed up to the
    beginning of THAT conflict.)  And further more, appropriate or not,
    Dick DID wish to continue this conversation in another forum and you
    used this as proof of his unwillingness to match wits with you.  This
    also strikes me as arrogant, a la meowski and the towel issue.  I don't
    follow the conference to which Dick wanted to go, but it's just
    possible that the conference offered past postings of Dick's or other
    folks whose writings support the points Dick wanted to make.  IF
    this was the case, to preserve the continuity of the discussion, such a
    move would seem logical.  IF this is the case, it strikes me that you
    are less interested in having a rational discussion/debate than you are
    in winning.  People who strike me as 'needing' to win are arrogant in
    my book.  Perhaps since I've responded now to your question, you will
    answer another one or two for me.  Why do you consider it to be arrogant 
    to question history?  Is it the fact that Dick's opinion is so far from
    accepted truths that is bothersome?  Is there a problem with reading
    and studying the 'facts' that are available and reaching different 
    conclusions?  I'm truly puzzled by this.  We may only agree on
    something once in a blue moon, but I'd always pictured you as a man who
    would respect another's willingness not to buy into anything at face
    value and it seems to be this is exactly what you are criticizing Dick
    for NOT doing......

    
    > We (people) re-write history all the time.  We have learned many things
    > in our school systems which we later find out to be total bollox. 
    
    Ya know I never thought about it that way.....hhhhmmmm interesting
    observation.
    
    > And further more, appropriate or not,
    > Dick DID wish to continue this conversation in another forum and you
    > used this as proof of his unwillingness to match wits with you.  This
    > also strikes me as arrogant...
    
    eeerrrr "arrogant" wasn't the word I thought of, but it fits too.
    

    'tine, my refusal to follow Dick to another conference at the time was
    merely personal preference.  I was very short of time, coming up on a
    two-week vacation, and simply wasn't about to be dragged off to another
    conference.  It was not used as "proof" of his arrogance; it was merely 
    a convenient lever to use to attempt to get him to debate here.  He
    refused, and it really isn't a big deal.  I've been somewhat amused
    that so many people think him worth defending, justified in running off
    to another conference.  Well, I'll bow out of it with this last word.
    
    As far as what he said, it remains my position that for him to take
    130+ years of hindsight and use that to proclaim Lincoln a fool is
    ridiculous- and far more arrogant than my vociferously calling on him
    to stand here and take his lumps.
    
    DougO

    
    > I've been somewhat amused
    > that so many people think him worth defending, justified in running off
    > to another conference.  

    DougO, did it ever occur to you that you were being baited to see how
    long we could keep dragging you back here to try and get the last word?

    > Well, I'll bow out ....

    I'll believe that when I see it.

    > ...with this last word.

    Almost.

    HTH
    Dan
    

    Dan-
    
    *I* wasn't baiting DougO.  *I* was spanking him :-) (DougO, that is the
    right term, no? :->)
    
    DougO, thanks for the answer.  I'll respectfully disagree with your
    last paragraph.

    
    Yes 'tine, you are above such petty things.  I sometimes however do
    indulge in such childish behavior....  I didn't mean to implicate you,
    or anyone else.

    This may be the reason for Dick wanting to change conferences or maybe
    the reason DougO doesn't want to.
    
         Entry name:  CIVIL_WAR
         File:        SMURF::USERA:[NOTES]CIVIL_WAR.NOTE;2
         Moderator:   SMURF::BINDER
    
    I've read through the conference and found it interesting and good
    reading. It is slow right now so taking this discussion there may be a
    good thing.

      <<< Note 505.201 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>
    
>    merely personal preference.  I was very short of time, 
    
    	And in the end you've spent even more time spinning your wheels
    	and defending yourself here.
    
>    Well, I'll bow out of it with this last word.
    
    	Your attempt to blend into the scenery?  (...to draw this
    	conversation back to the original topic...)

    Speaking of back to the topic...
    
    Anybody hear about Gore yesterday?  Is he back from Antarctica?

    Uh, he was gone? 

    
    re: .207
    
    
    > ALFSS1::CIAROCHI
    
    
     Who the hell are you?????
    
    
    
    
    
       :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
    

    
    	Leslie's husband, you ninnies!!
    

    I thought Leslie's husband was named Johnny.
    
    Chris

    Anybody have any idea why Al Gore met recently with Lee Pong, the
    butcher of Tien Amin square??  
    
    I seem to recall Clinton and Gore in 1992 traveling coast to coast
    maligning the Bush Administration for their China policy.
    
    -Jack

  Sure, Gore met with him because (1) Clinton can't - he's broken
 and (2) Gore is being pumped up as the next prex, and it is traditional
 to send veeps with aspirations on meaningless world tours.

  bb

    > Anybody have any idea why Al Gore met recently with Lee Pong, the
    > butcher of Tien Amin square??  
    
    Sure, to pick up the next installment payment check.
    
    Chris

    Yes, but imagine the hypocrisy here!!

    .246:
    
    Tian an men
    
    nnttm