"Bert Craig" wrote in message
t...
"Hans K0HB" wrote in message
om...
W5NET wrote:

Blacks have almost the entire continent of Africa and
Hispanics have almost the entire continent of South America.
Perhaps you can explain why either group needs to expand
to this continent, or why it is so wrong to resist that expansion.

What a sorry-assed load of blatant racist crap! Carried a little
farther, yellow people have the entire continent of Asia, white people
have almost the entire continent of Europe..... what Indian, Eskimo, or
Inuit tribe does Dwight Stewart belong to that gives him a right to be
in North America?

With kindest warm personal regards,

de Hans, K0HB

Firmly seconded! Well said Hans.

73 de Bert
WA2SI



Hard to believe, Bert and Hans have fallen for the liberal agenda.

Dan/W4NTI

"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message link.net...
"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
link.net...
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

(snip) If the Civil War wasn't about racism and slavery,
then (snip)


If the Civil War was about slavery, then why was there a war at all?

Because the states with the most slaves could see that eventually they
would either have to face the complete abolition of slavery *or* leave
the Union.

Prior
to the war, the slave states were the majority in both the House and
Senate,
insuring no legislation could be passed to end slavery.

When? Check a map of 1860. There were 19 slave states, of which 4
stayed in the Union. Delaware was a slave state but it did not secede.

Slavery was only
abolished after the war by not allowing the former Confederate States
(which
included several, but not all, of the slave states) to participate in
that
vote.

The Emancipation Proclamation was written in 1863. It legally freed
most (but not all) of the slaves.

The South has a lot to answer for, IMHO. (snip)

Why would they have any more to answer for than the Northern states
that
profited from the sale of slaves?

Which states were they? Slavery was abolished in the North by 1804. In
many northern states it was abolished before the Constitution was
written.

Or more to answer for than those who used
indentured or bound black workers in the North, even into the early
1900's?

Where was that done?

Indentured servitude is in no way comparable to slavery, btw.
Indentured servants *voluntarily* agree to work for a specified period
of time, usually as payment for training or a debt.

Or more to answer for than the many countries around the world which
practiced slavery in this last century (the 1900's), the previous
century,
or in the many centuries before that?

(snip) Modern-day Rebels with the Confederate flags on
their pickup trucks don't do much to heal the wounds of
the past. (snip)

Perhaps because they have absolutely no responsibility for what
happened
in a past long before they were born.

All depends on what that flag is meant to symbolize.

--

Here's what I learned about the War Between the States:

First off, it didn't start as a war to end slavery, but rather as a
war to keep the Union together. Lincoln's early (1861-1862) writings
make it clear his focus *at that time* was on preserving the Union at
almost any cost.

The Constitution, for all its wisdom, did not have any clear provision
for what should be done if one or more state(s) decided that they
simply wanted out of the Union at one point or another.

When the Constitution was written, there was a fairly even balance
between slave and free states. Compromises were reached in order to
get the new Union formed as a country rather than a confederation.
These were compromises with evil, and they could not last forever.

But over time the two parts of the US developed in such radically
different ways that the compromises and balance could no longer be
maintained. It was clear by 1855 or so that slavery's days were
numbered because eventually the abolitionists would reach enough of a
political majority to simply outlaw it everywhere. The trend was clear
- it was only a matter of time. Revolts like John Brown's and the
strengthening abolitionist movement made the moral issue unavoidable,
and the Supremes were starting to come around, too.

So, given the choice between leaving the Union or abolishing slavery,
15 states tried to leave. Some outside the 15 states said "Let them
go", but it was clear to Lincoln and others that if even one state was
allowed to secede, the Union would eventually fragment - and those
fragments would be ripe for takeover from other countries, many of
whom were patiently waiting for the "American experiment" to fail.

Once the war began, however, it slowly became clear to Lincoln and
many others that what had caused the split in the first place was the
idea that a country could proclaim itself "free" and yet allow
slavery. It became clear to him that the only way to preserve the
Union was to abolish slavery completely. Thus the Emancipation
Proclamation and the constitutional amendment.

Is any of the above incorrect?

What's interesting is that Great Britain, from whom the colonies split
on the issue of "all men [sic] are created equal", abolished slavery
years before the USA did.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Jim,

Much of what you seem to believe is based on the falsehood that the
Emancipation Proclamation
actually freed slaves. The proclamation ONLY APPLIED to those states in
rebellion against the Union.

That's why I wrote:

"It legally freed most (but not all) of the slaves."

It did not free any slaves in the states that didn't secede, but those
states didn't have many slaves anyway. And although it declared most
slaves to be free, in practice almost none of them were actually freed
because the union did not control the land where the slaves actually
were.

Unfortunately those same states were not a part of the union at the time the
proclamation was issued.

That can be argued both ways. Unionists would say they were in
rebellion, secessionists would say they had seceded and were defending
themselves against invasion from a foreign country.

Thus the proclamation applied to no one under the authority and/or control
of the then fragemented Union.

The slavery issue was indeed a major part of the root cause of the war
between the states. BUT a major other cause was that of states rights.

Besides the "right" to have slaves, what rights did the seceding
states want that the Union denied them?

And
whether we would be a republic or a federalist government. The struggle
continues to this day.

We are called a constitutional government, or a republic, or a democracy.
The reality is we are none of , and all of that.

We're not a democracy, because that oft-misused word means that issues
are directly decided by vote of the people. That's not the case for
most issues.

We are a constitutional republic, because the power rests primarily
with elected representatives but is limited by the Constitution.

The founding fathers NEVER
intended for the federal government to have so much authority and control
over the states.

How do you know what they intended?

Even if the folks who came to Philadelphia in 1787 did not intend for
the federal government to have as much power as it grew to have, one
thing is certain: They did not intend for the Constitution to remain a
static, unchangeable document.

Do you really think that a country which proclaims "all men are
created equal, with certain inalienable rights" could long endure if
certain men were allowed to *OWN* certain other men? Particularly when
those *OWNED*, or their ancestors, had been kidnapped?

Even back then, in the case of anything other than a human being, such
actions would be declared "dealing in stolen property" and the goal of
law enforcement would be to return the stolen property to its rightful
owner. Why were human beings treated differently? How can *anyone*
argue that an innocent human being not own his/her own life?

That was a major reason the Southern states left.

So it is claimed. But which rights were they concerned about? Did they
not want to pay federal taxes?

Lincoln
had NO RIGHT, or authorization to FORCE the South to rejoin the union. The
whole war was a major mistake, and to the victors go the spoils, and the
ones that write the history.

That's one interpretation of the Constitution. Another is that states
did not have the right to unilaterally secede from an agreement that
they had voluntarily entered into with the other states.

The US had already tried to operate under a looser system (the
Articles of Confederation) and had found them unworkable.

You may ask how, or why, do I say these things? Because I was raised in the
North, a world class Yankee state of Ohio. I was educated by the
Northerners on this subject. And before I came to Alabama I too believed it
hook line and sinker. No longer.

Then what should Lincoln have done? Simply let the seceding states
leave the Union?

Once that precedent was set, how long before the "United States" split
into more and more fragments? How long before the various fragments
were taken over by other world powers, such as England?

The South was right. We all lost that war, look at the mess we have in DC
now. Think about it.

It certainly would have been better if there could have been a
nonviolent resolution, but I don't see how that could have happened
other than to allow the Union to fragment - and the crime of slavery
to continue.

By compromising with the evil of slavery, the founders delayed the day
of reckoning - and made it that much worse.

And I'll ask again: What rights were the seceding states so adamant
about keeping that they were willing to fight a war in an attempt to
preserve them?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
And I'll ask again: What rights were the seceding states so adamant
about keeping that they were willing to fight a war in an attempt to
preserve them?


From the Southern point of view the North was interfering with the Southern
lifestyle. Folks take that real serious down here.

The North was applying taxes to Southern goods, the North was sending
abolitionists down South to stir up the blacks into insurection.

Basically the South saw the North as interfering in what they had no
business in.

And to this day. The southerners hated Lincoln. And that was the catalist
to kick it all off.

Jim, you need to come down here a bit, you would understand a bit more.


73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote:

When? Check a map of 1860. There were 19 slave states,
of which 4 stayed in the Union. Delaware was a slave state
but it did not secede.


Depends on the definition of a slave state, I guess. There were 18 Union
States and 11 Confederate States. The three border states did not side with
either and four of the slave states stayed in the Union. Even if you believe
the three border states, and all of the Union States (including the four
slave states), would have voted to end slavery, the Union did not have
enough numbers to abolish slavery in 1860 had the South not seceded-
remember, it takes 2/3rds of the Congress to pass an amendment. Since
slavery was not threatened had the South remained in the Union, slavery
obviously did not cause them to secede. In other words, the Civil War was
not about slavery until the Union (then and now) decided to make it so.
Whatever, it is certainly not what the South fought for.


The Emancipation Proclamation was written in 1863. It legally
freed most (but not all) of the slaves.


It freed only the slave in states "now in rebellion against the United
States" and listed the specific states. It did not apply to slaves in any
state that was not part of the Confederacy (it did not apply to slaves in
the Union States). The 13th amendment, passed after the war, ended slavery
throughout the United States. Read how the 13th amendment was passed by
Congress and later ratified.


Which states were they? Slavery was abolished in
the North by 1804. In many northern states it was
abolished before the Constitution was written.


So that makes their accountability less? In essence, you're arguing that
the Northern states are somehow better only because slavery ended there
before it ended in the South.


Here's what I learned about the War Between the States:


Fine. Since there are other messages to respond to, I'll ignore the
remaining nine paragraphs.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Hans K0HB" wrote:
W5NET wrote:

Blacks have almost the entire continent of Africa
and Hispanics have almost the entire continent of
South America. Perhaps you can explain why
either group needs to expand to this continent, or
why it is so wrong to resist that expansion.

What a sorry-assed load of blatant racist crap!


It is "racist crap" to state the obvious, Hans? Do you deny Blacks control
most of Africa and Hispanics most of South America? Why aren't you screaming
about the inherent racism of single ethnic cultures such as those? Why is
your outrage, your words of anger, always directed only at whites?


Carried a little farther, yellow people have the entire
continent of Asia, white people have almost the entire
continent of Europe.....


Yes. And your point is? My point is that many, perhaps even you, openly
and loudly advocate the movement of other races into Europe and North
America, but not whites into Asia, South America, or Africa. Indeed,
whenever whites do move elsewhere, it is immediately characterized as evil,
racist, power hunger, and greedy.


what Indian, Eskimo, or Inuit tribe does Dwight Stewart
belong to that gives him a right to be in North America?


See what I mean? Do you really think whites came to this country solely
to kill indians - that indians had no influence over those events? Why isn't
there even a hint of sorrow in your words for the many whites killed by
indians as they tried to peacefully settle across this country? Why is what
the settlers did somehow worse then what indians did to other indians in
their many wars?


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Hans K0HB" wrote in message
om...
W5NET wrote:

Blacks have almost the entire continent of Africa and
Hispanics have almost the entire continent of South America.
Perhaps you can explain why either group needs to expand
to this continent, or why it is so wrong to resist that expansion.

What a sorry-assed load of blatant racist crap! Carried a little
farther, yellow people have the entire continent of Asia, white people
have almost the entire continent of Europe..... what Indian, Eskimo, or
Inuit tribe does Dwight Stewart belong to that gives him a right to be
in North America?

With kindest warm personal regards,

de Hans, K0HB


Thank you Hans.

Kim W5TIT

Dwight Stewart wrote:

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

And, I believe the immigration laws are
appropriate, (snip)

We allow more immigrants into this country each year than any other
country on Earth, including those countries where most of our immigrants
come from. This mass influx is driving wages down and prices up. Our schools
are overcrowded. Education costs are going up. Medical costs are going up.
Home prices are going up. Land prices are going up. Food prices are going
up.

Salaries are going up.


Crime continues to go up.

I believe that crime rates have actually gone down, Dwight.

Our overall standard of living is going down.

Really? I have trouble accepting your claim.

At the same time, I don't see a single benefit for the average American. Can
you describe one benefit for me or my family, Kim?

I can think of one, Dwight. Those folks work and pay social security
taxes so that you can retire and draw SS benefits. They also pay State
and Federal taxes. Many of them are very bright individuals. Some are
doctors. Some do computer design work. Some do menial labor which most
American workers don't desire.

State and Federal welfare programs need to be
abolished. (snip)

Why would you want to cut off the parachute put in place to help
Americans? If you want to fix welfare, cut off the many thousands of illegal
immigrants who are taking benefits from others.

I don't believe that we owe illegal immigrants anything. Legal
immigrants are entitled to the same protections and benefits which we
enjoy.


Next, get rid of the obvious
bums abusing the welfare system. This two steps alone would cut the cost of
welfare programs dramatically, yet still provide help for those Americans
why really need it.

That has been implemented over the past decade.

There is no danger to US sovereignty. It may not
be a US you like; but it is no danger of losing its
sovereignty. (snip)

Kim, we've allowed millions of immigrants into this country from areas of
the world openly hostile to the United States,...

There are a number of places in this world where governments are hostile
to the United States. That does not indicate that citizens of those
countries are all hostile to the U.S.

...with no method to establish
their views of this country and its people.

On this one, you need to do your homework.


After 9-11, this is clearly not
safe for Americans.

I have trouble accepting your claim at face value. While it may be clear
to you, it isn't at all clear to me.

Can you be so sure it is not a threat to our
sovereignty? This reminds me of an old joke that is perhaps not that far
from the truth; an enemy doesn't have to invade today - they can just fill
out immigration papers for their entire army.

It wouldn't work. They'd all find jobs, start families, buy homes, cars
and TV sets. After they settled in, they could start complaining about
the newer immigrants fouling things up for them.

Blacks have almost the entire continent of Africa and Hispanics have
almost the entire continent of South America. Perhaps you can explain why
either group needs to expand to this continent, or why it is so wrong to
resist that expansion.

I hadn't realized the extent of your racist views, Dwight. Maybe you
have some insider knowledge of organized attempts by Africans or South
Americans to take over "our" country through immigration.

Unless we're prepared to spend lots of tourist
dollars, they're certainly not rushing to open their doors to us.

I lived in four African countries over a period of nearly ten years. In
all of those places, I found thousands of whites who live in harmony
with blacks. I don't know of many African countries who have government
policies aimed at restricting the flow of white residents into their
countries. That aside, I never found an African country where I'd
choose to spend the rest of my life. Many whites have.

Dave K8MN

"Dave Heil" wrote:
Dwight Stewart wrote:

(snip)

Salaries are going up.


Compared to the cost of living, salaries are going down. The minimum wage
is a good example. To keep up with the cost of living increase over the last
twenty-five years (to have the same spending power as 25 years ago), the
minimum wage should be over $19 per hour. By the same token, a person
earning $19 an hour twenty-five years ago should be earning well over $50 an
hour today. Check it out yourself. Look at the minimum wage 25 years ago (or
any typical wage 25 years ago) and increase it by the same percentage that
living costs (rent, house payments, utilities, food, and so on) have
increased over the years since.


I can think of one, Dwight. Those folks work and
pay social security taxes so that you can retire and
draw SS benefits. They also pay State and Federal
taxes. Many of them are very bright individuals.
Some are doctors. Some do computer design work.
Some do menial labor which most American workers
don't desire.


Americans working at those jobs would do the same things (pay taxes and so
on), Dave. Why do we need immigrants to do that? Some of those Americans are
even bright. As for the "menial" jobs, the only reason those jobs are menial
is because employers choose not to pay decent wages to do those jobs. And as
long as employers continue to find cheap labor to fill those jobs, there is
no incentitive whatsoever to increase those wages. If anything, a ready
supply of cheap labor only drives down wages for other jobs, increasing the
number of menial jobs and decreasing jobs that pay decent wages. The direct
result is less well paying jobs for all working class Americans.


I hadn't realized the extent of your racist views, Dwight.
Maybe you have some insider knowledge of organized
attempts by Africans or South Americans to take over
"our" country through immigration.


Obviously, if you twist what is said hard enough, you can call anyone a
racist. I talked about expansion to this country, not "organized attempts"
or "take over." Those were your words. For my reply to the charge of racism,
see the last paragraph below.


I lived in four African countries over a period of nearly ten
years. In all of those places, I found thousands of whites
who live in harmony with blacks. (snip)


A few exceptions don't change the rule, Dave. With the exception of South
Africa, there are few countries in Africa where large numbers of whites work
in government, the military, or in black owned businesses. In South Africa,
whites (the minority) were loudly criticized for taking jobs, money, and
power, away from blacks (the majority). The people leveling that criticism
were not called racist - only those in the majority here are called racist
for saying such things. After blacks gained control of the South African
government, white employees were routinely replaced with blacks throughout
the country. There was no criticism of this. After all, since South Africa
belonged to the blacks (the majority), they should obviously have the jobs,
money, and power. Of course, if a white (the majority) says that here, it is
immediately called racism. Clearly, there is an absurd double-standard when
it comes to the words "racism" and "racist."


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

After blacks gained control of the South African
government, white employees were routinely replaced
with blacks throughout the country. There was no
criticism of this. After all, since South Africa
belonged to the blacks (the majority), they should
obviously have the jobs, money, and power.

So let me make sure I understand your position......

Using your exact words, but interpolating your statement into US
terms, it would read like this: "Since the US government (President,
Vice President, Congress, the Judiciary) is clearly under white
control, then black employees throughout the country should routinely
be replaced by whites. After all, since the US belongs to the whites
(the majority), they should obviously have the jobs, money, and
power."

Does that fairly represent your position?

Good luck on this one now!

With warmest personal regards,

de Hans, K0HB

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message link.net...
"N2EY" wrote:

When? Check a map of 1860. There were 19 slave states,
of which 4 stayed in the Union. Delaware was a slave state
but it did not secede.


Depends on the definition of a slave state, I guess. There were 18 Union
States and 11 Confederate States. The three border states did not side with
either and four of the slave states stayed in the Union.

You're forgetting at least two states. There were 34 in 1861, but
18+11+3 = 32

Let's look at the states/commonwealths as they were in 1861:

Confederate states (formally declared secession, all slave states): 11
(VA, NC, SC, GA, FL, TN, AL, MS, LA, AR, TX)

Union states that did not allow slavery: 19 (ME, VT, NH, MA, RI, CT,
NY, NJ, PA, OH, IN, IL, MI, WS, IA, MN, KS, OR, CA)

Slave states that did not secede: 4 (KY, MO, DE, MD)

West Virginia was admitted as a Union state in 1863 by breaking away
from the rest of Virginia. "Mountaineers Are Always Free!"

Even if you believe
the three border states, and all of the Union States (including the four
slave states), would have voted to end slavery, the Union did not have
enough numbers to abolish slavery in 1860 had the South not seceded-
remember, it takes 2/3rds of the Congress to pass an amendment.

Check your math, Dwight. 23/34 = 67.64..% - more than the 2/3 needed.
It would have taken 23 states to pass such an amendment. 19 nonslave
Union states plus only 4 others would have been enough - and that's
without West Virginia.

Since
slavery was not threatened had the South remained in the Union, slavery
obviously did not cause them to secede.

But slavery *was* threatened, because the trend was clear to see. As
the West and Midwest developed, more and more free states would be
added. Many of the border states, like Delaware, had a low and
decreasing percentage of slaves and
slaveholders, so soon they would become de facto free states. (1860
census shows Delaware having a total population of 112,216, of which
1,798 were slaves. That's 1.6%.)

In other words, the Civil War was
not about slavery until the Union (then and now) decided to make it so.
Whatever, it is certainly not what the South fought for.

Then what *was* the South fighting for? What rights did the 11 states
cherish so greatly that they would secede and fight a war to keep
them?

The Emancipation Proclamation was written in 1863. It legally
freed most (but not all) of the slaves.

It freed only the slave in states "now in rebellion against the United
States" and listed the specific states. It did not apply to slaves in any
state that was not part of the Confederacy (it did not apply to slaves in
the Union States).

No argument there - but where were most of the slaves? In the
Confederate states!

The 13th amendment, passed after the war, ended slavery
throughout the United States. Read how the 13th amendment was passed by
Congress and later ratified.

Do you have a problem with how it was done?

Consider this: According to the 1860 census, the *MAJORITY* of the
population in South Carolina and Mississippi were slaves. Do you think
the state governments of those states accurately represented their
population's views on the issue?

Which states were they? Slavery was abolished in
the North by 1804. In many northern states it was
abolished before the Constitution was written.

So that makes their accountability less?

YES! Because:

A) they recognized the inherent contradiction of proclaiming "all men
are created equal" and then allowing some men to own others.

B) they did not have to be forced to abolish it from outside - they
did it on their own.

C) they did it *generations* before 1861.

In essence, you're arguing that
the Northern states are somehow better only because slavery ended there
before it ended in the South.

Is that not correct? I'm not saying the northern states were without
any guilt or accountability, or that they never had any slaves. The
northern states, by compromising with evil, enabled the slave states
to flourish. If someone does business with a thief, they become an
accessory to the theft, and share the guilt.

It seems like you are arguing that all states are equally guilty,
regardless of when they abolished slavery or how the abolition
happened. Somehow I find that hard to accept.

Here's what I learned about the War Between the States:

Fine. Since there are other messages to respond to, I'll ignore the
remaining nine paragraphs.

Was anything in those nine paragraphs incorrect?

And I'll repeat the key question:

What rights did the 11 states cherish so greatly that they would
secede and fight a war to keep them?

73 de Jim, N2EY