I am not clear on your point, JT. Are you saying that it would have been difficult to find jurors that would have convicted Davis or it would have been difficult to find jurors that would not have convicted him?
Even if they had tried him and he had gotten off as you suggest, does it mean he wasn't guilty of treason? Does it mean the states had a right to seceed the union?
Once again I use OJ Simpson as an example of how imperfect the system can be.
Even if they had tried him and he had gotten off as you suggest, does it mean he wasn't guilty of treason? Does it mean the states had a right to seceed the union?
No it wouldn't necessarily mean that. It is hard to determine what a jurors were thinking during deliberations. However, back then juror deliberations weren't secret and people could sit in on the deliberations. At times nonjurors would comment on the evidence and jurors could consider the comments. But it wouldn't have looked good if Davis had been acquited of treason
Jeff Davis was hardly a humiliated loser. He had many supporters until the day he died. As for the victors it was the first step toward a monopoly of power in the hands of the federal government.
"As for the victors it was the first step toward a monopoly of power in the hands of the federal government.'
NO, A new era in government - private -- business relations that has lifted millions out of poverty and given hope and security to the people of the United States.
A New Deal -- A Great Society.
I believe this is anniversary of FDR's signing into law the Social Security administration.
Like I said an increasing monopoly of power under the federal banner. It doesn't take a genius to figure out where it is all going. It is just a matter of time.
NO, A new era in government - private -- business relations that has lifted millions out of poverty and given hope and security to the people of the United States.
The government has done little to lift anyone out of poverty. All you have to look at is the amounts of money the feds have spent and the nearly constant level of poverty.
A New Deal -- A Great Society. Socialistic and Communist concepts that has taken power from the people and put it in the hands of the government. The only thing they have created is an ever growing bureaucracy.
I believe this is anniversary of FDR's signing into law the Social Security administration. A pyramid scheme if there ever was one.
Thanks, jethro, for bringing up the subject. Your welcome, commie.
"To you, Sons of Confederate Veterans, we submit the vindication of the Cause for which we fought; to your strength will be given the defense of the Confederate soldier's good name, the guardianship of his history, the emulation of his virtues, the perpetuation of those principles he loved and which made him glorious and which you also cherish. Remember, it is your duty to see that the true history of the South is presented to future generations."
I came back home after an overseas trip and notice that Ken Burns Civil War is back on PBS.
What a monumental work of art this is! The DVD is going to prove a prized item in my collection.
As an immigrant, I was really unaware of the import of the civil war on American life. I studied about the civil war in history class – but it was more a focus on freeing the slaves and Lincoln. I won a prize for reciting the Gettysburg address. It was the PBS documentary that really exposed me to the magnitude, the intensity, the scope and the deep scars the war left on the American psyche. Even today there are faint reverberations from the war.
A fratricidal war like that can have no winners – but it is generally seen as a triumph for the emancipated North over the insular South. However I really think the opposite happened. The Jim Crow laws that followed really ensured that the subjugation of the black man continued – though nuanced in a different manner. The barbarity subsided and the treatment as commodities ceased. But most everything else was perpetuated.
The Civil rights movement did prove more of an equalizer and does have to be ranked as the real leveler in human rights within the US. It also elevated the moral status of the US around the globe.
However, there still exists in American society this propensity to discriminate on the basis of color, religion and race. Several examples exist. The current animosity to Muslims is a manifestation of American intolerance – as is the delirium over attacking Iraq. Unless a balance is achieved, the lessons of the Civil War and Civil Rights movement would have been lost.
I would agree with most of your suppositions. Sadly, there will always be people who discriminate on the basis of color or creed. You cannot legislate against hate. Education is the best way to stop that. We have made great strides in this area with much work to be done. More than in many places. You make the generalization that we are intolerant of muslims as a whole. I think that making generalizations are just as racist. That in itself is the definition of racism. When you generalize about one group etc. That's not to say that there aren't people who are intolerant towards muslims.
Let me ask you this. Do you also not see intolerance from Muslims towards Christians, Jews, you know the ones called the "infidels" ?
I also am anxious to get an answer to my question since we Americans are apparently so intoleratnt towards Muslims I can't wait to hear how he explains Muslims lack of tolerance. Then again, we're just infidels to them but we are the intolerant ones. ;)
we actually do get an education in India billy boy - 'Bill - Fold' 10/2/02 3:34am
No pidgin gibberish the US high schools churn out. Read all my posts. You will find a commonality of language and flowery prose. I can also unleash a torrent of unique non-expletive put-downs - I thought I had some choice words directed at you ( abortion). Are you from Appalachian regions by any chance - the inbreeding there has led to some severe mental impairment. You fit the mold.
Luv2Fly 10/2/02 10:57am- Islam has allowed itself to become a victim to its most extreme elements. I have postulated that for quite some time now. Picture what Khoresh and Jim Jones and Pat Robertson did to the Christian faith - Islam has been overtaken and is being directed by ideological twins of such people.
Americans tend to fall prey to xenophobia often - the Japanese internment, McCarthy, the militia movements and McVeigh - are examples from recent history. Times before have been polluted by far worse excesses. A relapse to such demonic passions is happening now. But enlightened immigrants like me are standing by to squelch such fissiparous ( look up the dictionary Bill_fold!) tendencies.
Personally I think it's a little silly to blame the Islamic religion for any of what's happening in the world today. People may use religion to justify what they do, but it's never the true motivator. Money and sex are what motivate people. People around the world hate the U.S. for the economic and political influence it exercises, often to the detriment of foreign countries. But it's hard to motivate an army to fight for a better foreign trade policy. So instead you urge them to fight a holy war against the infidels. If the U.S. had a different foreign policy that helped make people around the world more prosperous, better fed, and in better health, people who preached extremist Muslim agendas wouldn't be able to scrape two followers together.
Surely his suspicion of the Government and hallucinations of massive Waco repeats led him to delusionally blow up a building full of Govt. employees - innocent ones. That should fit.
a little silly to blame the Islamic religion for any of what's happening in the world today.
I agree - and I make a distinction. Islam has been hijacked by its extreme elements and the moderates have no voice. Look at Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Malaysia, Yemen - you will see it there. Islam is a peaceful, all encompassing faith. It attracts many minorities all over the globe. But it has lost its moorings because of its leaders.
If the U.S. had a different foreign policy that helped make people around the world more prosperous, better fed, and in better health, people who preached extremist Muslim agendas wouldn't be able to scrape two followers together.
The US alone cannot do that - the nations have to try themselves. What the US can do is change its policy in the Middle East, become less of an Israeli sycophant - and a lot of the belligerence will subside.
"If the U.S. had a different foreign policy that helped make people around the world more prosperous, better fed, and in better health, people who preached extremist Muslim agendas wouldn't be able to scrape two followers together."
The Problem is the Domestic Policy of Those countries...
People may use religion to justify what they do, but it's never the true motivator. Never?
If the U.S. had a different foreign policy that helped make people around the world more prosperous, better fed, and in better health, people who preached extremist Muslim agendas wouldn't be able to scrape two followers together. You do not think our foreign policy has ever ben for the purpose of helping people? Not even Somalia?
Islam has allowed itself to become a victim to its most extreme elements. I have postulated that for quite some time now. Picture what Khoresh and Jim Jones and Pat Robertson did to the Christian faith - Islam has been overtaken and is being directed by ideological twins of such people.
Koresh, Robertson and Jones never flew planes into buildings or bombed busses or airliners. But I agree that unfortunately for Muslims who are not fanatical extremists their religion is being overtaken.
Americans tend to fall prey to xenophobia often - the Japanese internment, McCarthy, the militia movements and McVeigh - are examples from recent history. Times before have been polluted by far worse excesses. A relapse to such demonic passions is happening now. But enlightened immigrants like me are standing by to squelch such fissiparous ( look up the dictionary Bill_fold!) tendencies. Â Â
It still doesn't adress my question to you. You claimed that America is intolerant of Muslims. As a whole I'd say that's false. Yes there are exceptions everywhere you go. However, America as a nation by it's law is very open. We are open to relgion and allow people to practice any religion they wish. We allow people to come here from other nations to make a better life. We are more (too oversensative in my opinion) to everyone's culture, identity, heritage, etc, etc. are laws also protect against discrimination etc. Does it stop it completely? No. No law will ever stop crime completely, only bring justice.
Can the same be said of most Muslims ? or Muslim nations ? I don't see Muslims abroad as being very tolerant of westerners either.
"Surely his suspicion of the Government and hallucinations of massive Waco repeats led him to delusionally blow up a building full of Govt. employees - innocent ones. That should fit."
Hmmmm, I don't think xenophobia means what you think it means. Xenophobia is a fear of foreigners. I'm not sure how being suspicious of the US Government would qualify as a fear of foreigners.
People may use religion to justify what they do, but it's never the true motivator. Money and sex are what motivate people People around the world hate the U.S. for the economic and political influence it exercises, often to the detriment of foreign countries. But it's hard to motivate an army to fight for a better foreign trade policy. So instead you urge them to fight a holy war against the infidels. If the U.S. had a different foreign policy that helped make people around the world more prosperous, better fed, and in better health, people who preached extremist Muslim agendas wouldn't be able to scrape two followers together. Â Â
Really, so if people were just better fed and in better health people who preach extremist muslim agendas wouldn't be able to scrape two followers together ?
I disagree Allison. The highjackers who flew planes into buildings on 9-11 were educated, middle class, well traveled men who were in good health. Not to mention Bin Laden is a millionaire. Most of the hijackers who were middle class came from Saudi Arabia and the UAE, who are two of the most U.S friendly countries in the Arab world. So much for that whole downtrodden poverty thing.
Main Entry: xe·no·pho·bia Pronunciation: "ze-n&-'fO-bE-&, "zE- Function: noun Etymology: New Latin Date: 1903 : fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign
Strange and Foreign as contrary to ones stream of thought.
The intolerance of Muslims is no different than that of Americans - the homophobes, the anti-abortionists, the NRA gun nuts, the extreme environmentalists and so on and so forth. I was in Germany two weeks ago - during their elections. The animosity they have for the US was greater than what I witnessed in Indonesia.
The intolerance of Muslims is no different than that of Americans - the homophobes, the anti-abortionists, the NRA gun nuts, the extreme environmentalists and so on and so forth. I was in Germany two weeks ago - during their elections. The animosity they have for the US was greater than what I witnessed in Indonesia.
There will always be intolerance and animostiy. And Muslims are hardly a tolerant group. I wonder how others are welcomed in other countries. So they in other countries have animosity towards Americans so it would seem that they are also intolerant as well.
You are reaching trying to call McVeigh zenophobic, Allison was correct in his statement.
"I disagree Allison. The highjackers who flew planes into buildings on 9-11 were educated, middle class, well traveled men who were in good health. Not to mention Bin Laden is a millionaire. Most of the hijackers who were middle class came from Saudi Arabia and the UAE, who are two of the most U.S friendly countries in the Arab world. So much for that whole downtrodden poverty thing."
It's not quite that simple. The actual hijackers were not in charge of the mission. They were the "soldiers" that were stirred up by religion. Bin Laden, if he were successful, would almost certainly stand to gain in power and wealth within the Arab world. I find it hard to believe he's merely acting out of religious piety.
But no one is really going to go around killing others just because of a difference in religion. Some other perceived injustice or lust is what inspires it and the religion just justifies it. There are many people in this world who are Muslims, but there are many more who are not. The Chineses and Japanese are not. The Swedes are not. The Irish are not. Do you see the Arabs targeting any of them? No. So now try and tell me this is just about religion.
It's not quite that simple. The actual hijackers were not in charge of the mission.
O.K I agree on that, but that shoots an even larger whole in your poverty/health theory. The ones in charge were even more wealthy and powerful.
They were the "soldiers" that were stirred up by religion.
below you tell me that "But no one is really going to go around killing others just because of a difference in religion." So which is it ?
For the record I never brought up the religious aspect in responding to you. You did. I am taking issue with your posistion that it somehow is based on being downtrodden, poor, and in bad health. The "soilders" as you put it nor the people in charge were not poor, downtrodden or in bad health. Although it's rumored that Binny has kidney troubles.
Bin Laden, if he were successful, would almost certainly stand to gain in power and wealth within the Arab world. I find it hard to believe he's merely acting out of religious piety.
Where did I say he was acting out of religious piety. Again, I didn't bring religion into it you did. I didn't take issue with the religious factor or non-factor.
Have you read anything about his motives ?
But no one is really going to go around killing others just because of a difference in religion.
Tell that to the Jews, the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland. or the Christians shot last week execution style in Pakistan and the 40 other Christians who were killed there as well. Or the Hindu's in India. Or the missionaries killed in the Philipenes. People have fought over differences in religion for thousands of years ever hear of the crusades? Or the Muslims in Croatia. These people were killed because of relgion as the main motivator. I'm not saying that's the primary motive on 9-11 but that statement is way off.
Some other perceived injustice or lust is what inspires it and the religion just justifies it.
Agreed. But it wasn't poverty etc. The religion was merely a vehicle for the hate. You have to remember what is taught in the extremist mosques. He twists his religion to fuel the hate. His main motivators is for our support of Israel and the gulf war in 91'But there is also a huge religious element to his motives.
There are many people in this world who are Muslims, but there are many more who are not. The Chineses and Japanese are not. The Swedes are not. The Irish are not. Do you see the Arabs targeting any of them? No. So now try and tell me this is just about religion.
Again, go and find where I said it was just about religion, you didn't read my post I guess before you responded. That would help for starters. But for the record they/he has targeted other governments. They plotted to blow up the Eifiel tower and other attacks in France. There have been plots foiled in England. Have targeted the Philipene government. And Chechneya and other Soviet targets as well. Last time I looked they weren't Muslim majorities either. BTW he also has targeted the Saudi Government. He sees them as being to pro U.S and in his own words essentially practice too soft a version of Islam.
So tell me again how
"If the U.S. had a different foreign policy that helped make people around the world more prosperous, better fed, and in better health, people who preached extremist Muslim agendas wouldn't be able to scrape two followers together."
Right, if our foreign policy only made people more prosperous better fed and healthy.
People don't fight wars if they're happy and healthy unless they either feel they have to to protect themselves or they actually have something to gain from it. However offensive you might find someone else's religion, it's not worth sacrificing your life and prosperity just to prove them wrong. There has to be more to it than that.
"Tell that to the Jews,"
Is it because they are Jews, or is it really because they are occupying land that the Moslems want?
"the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland."
That's not really about religion. It's about those who are loyal to England versus those who are loyal to Ireland.
"Christians shot last week execution style in Pakistan and the 40 other Christians who were killed there as well."
I didn't hear about that one though I would guess it was meant more as an anti-American statement than an anti-Christian statement.
"Or the Hindu's in India."
What about them?
"ever hear of the crusades?"
That wasn't really about religion either. Religion was just an excuse. Or rather conflict between religions was the excuse. But there were things in Jerusalem some people in Europe wanted and launching the crusades was the only way to get in there and get them.
"Or the Muslims in Croatia."
It was generally referred to as "ethnic cleansing" not "religious cleansing". They just didn't want to share their land and resources any more with people who were different from them. Nationalism in that area has always been very fierce.
And I still say the Muslims don't hate us because of our religion any more than Christians hate Muslims just because they have a different religion. It's America's foreign policies they hate. That's why they want to strike at our financial and governmental centers instead of blowing up our religious centers. That we are "infidels" is just a convenient justification for whatever they may do.
As for Bin Laden and other terrorists being fairly well off, that is good, but unless they are Republicans, it's not good enough. Some people are actually concerned also with the welfare of their fellow citizens and may still be outraged at the poverty of their nation even if they themselves are well off. Or even if their nation isn't poor, they might still resent the control the U.S. exerts their people. So I still say this has more to do with politics and money than it does with religion. And if we can recognize that, then we can work towards a solution. If we continue to believe it's really just about religion, then there can be no peace.
And I still say the Muslims don't hate us because of our religion any more than Christians hate Muslims
Sorry Allison but that statement is completly false. Take a look at some of the extremist mosques and madrass in Pakistan. See what they teach 7 year olds. In a nutshell we are on the same levels of monkeys. They consider ground that we walk on to be defiled. Take a look at some of their views and then try to tell me that in general Christians hate Muslims more.
If we continue to believe it's really just about religion, then there can be no peace.
Again I never aid it was soely about religion nor did I bring it up but tell me, what does the word Jihad, translate to ?
"Christians shot last week execution style in Pakistan and the 40 other Christians who were killed there as well."
I didn't hear about that one though I would guess it was meant more as an anti-American statement than an anti-Christian statement.
They were Pakistani nationals, the only difference between the two ? The ones killed were Christian.
Look, I never brought religion up. I am not saying the 9-11 attackers main reason was religion, however it was a big part of it, bigger than you think Allison. There are a million articles written on Bin Ladens motives. I still have links to some I think, if you'd like I would be happy to dig them up. was it all of the reason, no, it was a combo of religious extremism driven by other factors. The factors didn't have to do with poverty as you proclaim. His main motivators were our support if Israel, our being in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War. Tie that in with him and his lackeys seeing everyone else who is called non believer to be on the level of dogs and referred to usually as infidels or the great satan.
>As for Bin Laden and other terrorists being fairly well off, that is good, but unless they are Republicans, it's not good enough. Some people are actually concerned also with the welfare of their fellow citizens and may still be outraged at the poverty of their nation even if they themselves are well off.
What does being a republican have to do with any of this ? Or are you saying only people who aren't republicans care about others. Righto. O.K
I was making reference to the recent killings of Hindus by Muslims in India. I wasn't making a defense of either side, merely pointing out that sometimes people do kill for religious reasons. Geez.
In framing the Constitution of the Confederate States, the authors adopted, with numerous elisions and additions, the language of the Constitution of the United States, and followed the same order of arrangement of articles and sections. The changes made in this adaptation of the old Constitution are here shown. The parts stricken out are enclosed in brackets, and the new matter added in framing the Confederate Constitution is printed in italics.
Fort Fisher in North Carolina falls to Union forces, and Wilmington, the Confederacy's most important blockade-running port, is closed.
When President Lincoln declared a blockade of southern ports in 1861, Rebel engineers began construction on a fortress at the mouth of New Inlet, which provided access to Wilmington. Fort Fisher was constructed of timber and sand, and it posed a formidable challenge for the Yankees. The walls were more than 20 feet high and they bristled with large cannon. Land mines and palisades made from sharpened logs created even more obstacles for potential attackers.
Union leadership did not make Fort Fisher a high priority until the last year of the war. After the Federals closed Mobile Bay in August 1864, attention turned to shutting down Wilmington. Union ships moved into place in December and began a massive bombardment on Christmas Eve. The next day, a small force failed to capture the fort but the attempt was renewed in January. On January 13, a massive three-day bombardment began. On the third day, 9,000 Yankee infantry commanded by General Alfred Terry hit the beach and attacked Fort Fisher. The Confederates could not repulse the attack.
The damage was heavy on both sides: the Union suffered more than 900 Army casualties and 380 Navy casualties, and the Confederates suffered 500 killed or wounded and over 1,000 captured. After the loss of this last major Confederate port, it was only three months before the war concluded.
The Crittenden Compromise, the last chance to keep North and South together, dies in the U.S. Senate.
Proposed by Senator John J. Crittenden of Kentucky, the compromise was a series of constitutional amendments. The amendments would continue the old Missouri Compromise provisions of 1820, which divided the west along the latitude of 36º 30". North of this line, slavery was prohibited. The Missouri Compromise was negated by the Compromise of 1850, which allowed a vote by territorial residents (popular sovereignty) to decide the issue of slavery. Other amendments protected slavery in the District of Columbia, forbade federal interference with the interstate slave trade, and compensated owners whose slaves escaped to the free states.
Essentially, the Crittenden Compromise sought to alleviate all concerns of the southern states. Four states had already left the Union when it was proposed, but Crittenden hoped the compromise would lure them back. Crittenden thought he could muster support from both South and North and avert either a split of the nation or a civil war. The major problem with the plan was that it called for a complete compromise by the Republicans with virtually no concession on the part of the South. The Republican Party formed in 1854 solely for the purpose of opposing the expansion of slavery into the western territories, particularly the areas north of the Missouri Compromise line. Just six years later, the party elected a president, Abraham Lincoln, over the complete opposition of the slave states. Crittenden was asking the Republicans to abandon their most key issues.
The vote was 25 against the compromise and 23 in favor of it. All 25 votes against it were cast by Republicans, and six senators from states that were in the process of seceding abstained. One Republican editorial insisted that the party "cannot be made to surrender the fruits of its recent victory." There would be no compromise; with the secession of states continuing, the country marched inexorably towards civil war.
The war wasn't righteous. The north didn't fight to free the slaves. The end of slavery was incidental to the war. If the north were truly fighting to end slavery why didn't it declare war on Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware? All those states recognized slavery and three of them had large populations of slaves. Why didn't the Emancipation Proclamation emancipate the slaves in those states? It was because the war was about unification and not slavery.
...they couldn't find 12 jurors that believed states did not have the right to secede.
I'm sure they could have found thousands.
In Virginia in 1867? Besides it would take only on person that believed in seccession to preclude a conviction.
In Virginia in 1867?
Why not? I could find millions today that think OJ is innocent.
I am not clear on your point, JT. Are you saying that it would have been difficult to find jurors that would have convicted Davis or it would have been difficult to find jurors that would not have convicted him?
And may I aslo have a real creepy old vine covered castle
As soon as I get my "package" from the Dog Lovers of America.
I'm saying I highly doubt that's why they didn't try him.
Sometimes it's better just to move on.
So why didn't they try him, JT?
I don't know. I wasn't there. I wasn't involved.
Even if they had tried him and he had gotten off as you suggest, does it mean he wasn't guilty of treason? Does it mean the states had a right to seceed the union?
Once again I use OJ Simpson as an example of how imperfect the system can be.
I don't know. I wasn't there. I wasn't involved.
I hope you didn't put that on your history exams.
Even if they had tried him and he had gotten off as you suggest, does it mean he wasn't guilty of treason? Does it mean the states had a right to seceed the union?
No it wouldn't necessarily mean that. It is hard to determine what a jurors were thinking during deliberations. However, back then juror deliberations weren't secret and people could sit in on the deliberations. At times nonjurors would comment on the evidence and jurors could consider the comments. But it wouldn't have looked good if Davis had been acquited of treason
"But it wouldn't have looked good if Davis had been acquited of treason "
Especially for the Virginia jury.
No, it wouldn't have looked good for the United States government. Any Virginia jury would have been heros by most southerners.
"Any Virginia jury would have been heros by most southerners."
To the losers? So what? Bit of a dubious honor.
What would be their task, walking in, sitting down and rubber-stamping an acquittal. That's heroic behavior, sure enough.
And I doubt they would be much of a hero to the freed slaves. These new, freed Americans would witness crony justice at work.
So let's see: We have Jeff Davis, apologist for slavelords, Jeff Davis, traitor.
Jeff Davis, humiliated loser.
Jeff Davis was hardly a humiliated loser. He had many supporters until the day he died. As for the victors it was the first step toward a monopoly of power in the hands of the federal government.
"As for the victors it was the first step toward a monopoly of power in the hands of the federal government.'
NO, A new era in government - private -- business relations that has lifted millions out of poverty and given hope and security to the people of the United States.
A New Deal -- A Great Society.
I believe this is anniversary of FDR's signing into law the Social Security administration.
Thanks, jethro, for bringing up the subject.
Like I said an increasing monopoly of power under the federal banner. It doesn't take a genius to figure out where it is all going. It is just a matter of time.
NO, A new era in government - private -- business relations that has lifted millions out of poverty and given hope and security to the people of the United States.
The government has done little to lift anyone out of poverty. All you have to look at is the amounts of money the feds have spent and the nearly constant level of poverty.
A New Deal -- A Great Society. Socialistic and Communist concepts that has taken power from the people and put it in the hands of the government. The only thing they have created is an ever growing bureaucracy.
I believe this is anniversary of FDR's signing into law the Social Security administration. A pyramid scheme if there ever was one.
Thanks, jethro, for bringing up the subject. Your welcome, commie.
This is an interesting site. http://www.scv.org/default.aspI have some confederate ancestors. Maybe I'll join.
You're gonna join the confederacy ? A little late don't you think ?
Did you read this part:
Charge to the Sons of Confederate Veterans:
"To you, Sons of Confederate Veterans, we submit the vindication of the Cause for which we fought; to your strength will be given the defense of the Confederate soldier's good name, the guardianship of his history, the emulation of his virtues, the perpetuation of those principles he loved and which made him glorious and which you also cherish. Remember, it is your duty to see that the true history of the South is presented to future generations."
You would make an excellent town idiot, fold.
Why do you want to know? Do you need help with yours?
I came back home after an overseas trip and notice that Ken Burns Civil War is back on PBS.
What a monumental work of art this is! The DVD is going to prove a prized item in my collection.
As an immigrant, I was really unaware of the import of the civil war on American life. I studied about the civil war in history class – but it was more a focus on freeing the slaves and Lincoln. I won a prize for reciting the Gettysburg address. It was the PBS documentary that really exposed me to the magnitude, the intensity, the scope and the deep scars the war left on the American psyche. Even today there are faint reverberations from the war.
A fratricidal war like that can have no winners – but it is generally seen as a triumph for the emancipated North over the insular South. However I really think the opposite happened. The Jim Crow laws that followed really ensured that the subjugation of the black man continued – though nuanced in a different manner. The barbarity subsided and the treatment as commodities ceased. But most everything else was perpetuated.
The Civil rights movement did prove more of an equalizer and does have to be ranked as the real leveler in human rights within the US. It also elevated the moral status of the US around the globe.
However, there still exists in American society this propensity to discriminate on the basis of color, religion and race. Several examples exist. The current animosity to Muslims is a manifestation of American intolerance – as is the delirium over attacking Iraq. Unless a balance is achieved, the lessons of the Civil War and Civil Rights movement would have been lost.
Naradar,
I would agree with most of your suppositions. Sadly, there will always be people who discriminate on the basis of color or creed. You cannot legislate against hate. Education is the best way to stop that. We have made great strides in this area with much work to be done. More than in many places. You make the generalization that we are intolerant of muslims as a whole. I think that making generalizations are just as racist. That in itself is the definition of racism. When you generalize about one group etc. That's not to say that there aren't people who are intolerant towards muslims.
Let me ask you this. Do you also not see intolerance from Muslims towards Christians, Jews, you know the ones called the "infidels" ?
The current animosity to Muslims is a manifestation of American intolerance – as is the delirium over attacking Iraq.
Why don't you take your lies somewhere where people might believe them?
I noticed that Fold :)
I also am anxious to get an answer to my question since we Americans are apparently so intoleratnt towards Muslims I can't wait to hear how he explains Muslims lack of tolerance. Then again, we're just infidels to them but we are the intolerant ones. ;)
we actually do get an education in India billy boy - 'Bill - Fold' 10/2/02 3:34am
No pidgin gibberish the US high schools churn out. Read all my posts. You will find a commonality of language and flowery prose. I can also unleash a torrent of unique non-expletive put-downs - I thought I had some choice words directed at you ( abortion). Are you from Appalachian regions by any chance - the inbreeding there has led to some severe mental impairment. You fit the mold.
Luv2Fly 10/2/02 10:57am-
Islam has allowed itself to become a victim to its most extreme elements. I have postulated that for quite some time now. Picture what Khoresh and Jim Jones and Pat Robertson did to the Christian faith - Islam has been overtaken and is being directed by ideological twins of such people.
Americans tend to fall prey to xenophobia often - the Japanese internment, McCarthy, the militia movements and McVeigh - are examples from recent history. Times before have been polluted by far worse excesses. A relapse to such demonic passions is happening now.
But enlightened immigrants like me are standing by to squelch such fissiparous ( look up the dictionary Bill_fold!) tendencies.
How is McVeigh an example of xenophobia?
Personally I think it's a little silly to blame the Islamic religion for any of what's happening in the world today. People may use religion to justify what they do, but it's never the true motivator. Money and sex are what motivate people. People around the world hate the U.S. for the economic and political influence it exercises, often to the detriment of foreign countries. But it's hard to motivate an army to fight for a better foreign trade policy. So instead you urge them to fight a holy war against the infidels. If the U.S. had a different foreign policy that helped make people around the world more prosperous, better fed, and in better health, people who preached extremist Muslim agendas wouldn't be able to scrape two followers together.
Allison Wonderland 10/2/02 11:52am
How is McVeigh an example of xenophobia?
Surely his suspicion of the Government and hallucinations of massive Waco repeats led him to delusionally blow up a building full of Govt. employees - innocent ones. That should fit.
a little silly to blame the Islamic religion for any of what's happening in the world today.
I agree - and I make a distinction. Islam has been hijacked by its extreme elements and the moderates have no voice. Look at Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Malaysia, Yemen - you will see it there. Islam is a peaceful, all encompassing faith. It attracts many minorities all over the globe. But it has lost its moorings because of its leaders.
If the U.S. had a different foreign policy that helped make people around the world more prosperous, better fed, and in better health, people who preached extremist Muslim agendas wouldn't be able to scrape two followers together.
The US alone cannot do that - the nations have to try themselves. What the US can do is change its policy in the Middle East, become less of an Israeli sycophant - and a lot of the belligerence will subside.
"If the U.S. had a different foreign policy that helped make people around the world more prosperous, better fed, and in better health, people who preached extremist Muslim agendas wouldn't be able to scrape two followers together."
The Problem is the Domestic Policy of Those countries...
Not the Foreign Policy of the United States...
People may use religion to justify what they do, but it's never the true motivator. Never?
If the U.S. had a different foreign policy that helped make people around the world more prosperous, better fed, and in better health, people who preached extremist Muslim agendas wouldn't be able to scrape two followers together. You do not think our foreign policy has ever ben for the purpose of helping people? Not even Somalia?
Naradar,
Koresh, Robertson and Jones never flew planes into buildings or bombed busses or airliners. But I agree that unfortunately for Muslims who are not fanatical extremists their religion is being overtaken.
It still doesn't adress my question to you. You claimed that America is intolerant of Muslims. As a whole I'd say that's false. Yes there are exceptions everywhere you go. However, America as a nation by it's law is very open. We are open to relgion and allow people to practice any religion they wish. We allow people to come here from other nations to make a better life. We are more (too oversensative in my opinion) to everyone's culture, identity, heritage, etc, etc. are laws also protect against discrimination etc. Does it stop it completely? No. No law will ever stop crime completely, only bring justice.
Can the same be said of most Muslims ? or Muslim nations ? I don't see Muslims abroad as being very tolerant of westerners either.
"Surely his suspicion of the Government and hallucinations of massive Waco repeats led him to delusionally blow up a building full of Govt. employees - innocent ones. That should fit."
Hmmmm, I don't think xenophobia means what you think it means. Xenophobia is a fear of foreigners. I'm not sure how being suspicious of the US Government would qualify as a fear of foreigners.
Allison Wonderland,
Really, so if people were just better fed and in better health people who preach extremist muslim agendas wouldn't be able to scrape two followers together ?
I disagree Allison. The highjackers who flew planes into buildings on 9-11 were educated, middle class, well traveled men who were in good health. Not to mention Bin Laden is a millionaire. Most of the hijackers who were middle class came from Saudi Arabia and the UAE, who are two of the most U.S friendly countries in the Arab world. So much for that whole downtrodden poverty thing.
Allison Wonderland 10/2/02 12:53pm
Main Entry: xe·no·pho·bia
Pronunciation: "ze-n&-'fO-bE-&, "zE-
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin
Date: 1903
: fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign
Strange and Foreign as contrary to ones stream of thought.
Luv2Fly 10/2/02 12:39pm
The intolerance of Muslims is no different than that of Americans - the homophobes, the anti-abortionists, the NRA gun nuts, the extreme environmentalists and so on and so forth. I was in Germany two weeks ago - during their elections. The animosity they have for the US was greater than what I witnessed in Indonesia.
Naradar,
There will always be intolerance and animostiy. And Muslims are hardly a tolerant group. I wonder how others are welcomed in other countries. So they in other countries have animosity towards Americans so it would seem that they are also intolerant as well.
You are reaching trying to call McVeigh zenophobic, Allison was correct in his statement.
"I disagree Allison. The highjackers who flew planes into buildings on 9-11 were educated, middle class, well traveled men who were in good health. Not to mention Bin Laden is a millionaire. Most of the hijackers who were middle class came from Saudi Arabia and the UAE, who are two of the most U.S friendly countries in the Arab world. So much for that whole downtrodden poverty thing."
It's not quite that simple. The actual hijackers were not in charge of the mission. They were the "soldiers" that were stirred up by religion. Bin Laden, if he were successful, would almost certainly stand to gain in power and wealth within the Arab world. I find it hard to believe he's merely acting out of religious piety.
But no one is really going to go around killing others just because of a difference in religion. Some other perceived injustice or lust is what inspires it and the religion just justifies it. There are many people in this world who are Muslims, but there are many more who are not. The Chineses and Japanese are not. The Swedes are not. The Irish are not. Do you see the Arabs targeting any of them? No. So now try and tell me this is just about religion.
Allison,
O.K I agree on that, but that shoots an even larger whole in your poverty/health theory. The ones in charge were even more wealthy and powerful.
below you tell me that "But no one is really going to go around killing others just because of a difference in religion."
So which is it ?
For the record I never brought up the religious aspect in responding to you. You did. I am taking issue with your posistion that it somehow is based on being downtrodden, poor, and in bad health. The "soilders" as you put it nor the people in charge were not poor, downtrodden or in bad health. Although it's rumored that Binny has kidney troubles.
Where did I say he was acting out of religious piety. Again, I didn't bring religion into it you did. I didn't take issue with the religious factor or non-factor.
Have you read anything about his motives ?
Tell that to the Jews, the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland. or the Christians shot last week execution style in Pakistan and the 40 other Christians who were killed there as well. Or the Hindu's in India. Or the missionaries killed in the Philipenes. People have fought over differences in religion for thousands of years ever hear of the crusades? Or the Muslims in Croatia. These people were killed because of relgion as the main motivator. I'm not saying that's the primary motive on 9-11 but that statement is way off.
Agreed. But it wasn't poverty etc. The religion was merely a vehicle for the hate. You have to remember what is taught in the extremist mosques. He twists his religion to fuel the hate. His main motivators is for our support of Israel and the gulf war in 91'But there is also a huge religious element to his motives.
Again, go and find where I said it was just about religion, you didn't read my post I guess before you responded. That would help for starters. But for the record they/he has targeted other governments. They plotted to blow up the Eifiel tower and other attacks in France. There have been plots foiled in England. Have targeted the Philipene government. And Chechneya and other Soviet targets as well. Last time I looked they weren't Muslim majorities either. BTW he also has targeted the Saudi Government. He sees them as being to pro U.S and in his own words essentially practice too soft a version of Islam.
So tell me again how
Right, if our foreign policy only made people more prosperous better fed and healthy.
People don't fight wars if they're happy and healthy unless they either feel they have to to protect themselves or they actually have something to gain from it. However offensive you might find someone else's religion, it's not worth sacrificing your life and prosperity just to prove them wrong. There has to be more to it than that.
"Tell that to the Jews,"
Is it because they are Jews, or is it really because they are occupying land that the Moslems want?
"the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland."
That's not really about religion. It's about those who are loyal to England versus those who are loyal to Ireland.
"Christians shot last week execution style in Pakistan and the 40 other Christians who were killed there as well."
I didn't hear about that one though I would guess it was meant more as an anti-American statement than an anti-Christian statement.
"Or the Hindu's in India."
What about them?
"ever hear of the crusades?"
That wasn't really about religion either. Religion was just an excuse. Or rather conflict between religions was the excuse. But there were things in Jerusalem some people in Europe wanted and launching the crusades was the only way to get in there and get them.
"Or the Muslims in Croatia."
It was generally referred to as "ethnic cleansing" not "religious cleansing". They just didn't want to share their land and resources any more with people who were different from them. Nationalism in that area has always been very fierce.
And I still say the Muslims don't hate us because of our religion any more than Christians hate Muslims just because they have a different religion. It's America's foreign policies they hate. That's why they want to strike at our financial and governmental centers instead of blowing up our religious centers. That we are "infidels" is just a convenient justification for whatever they may do.
As for Bin Laden and other terrorists being fairly well off, that is good, but unless they are Republicans, it's not good enough. Some people are actually concerned also with the welfare of their fellow citizens and may still be outraged at the poverty of their nation even if they themselves are well off. Or even if their nation isn't poor, they might still resent the control the U.S. exerts their people. So I still say this has more to do with politics and money than it does with religion. And if we can recognize that, then we can work towards a solution. If we continue to believe it's really just about religion, then there can be no peace.
say what - Luv2Fly 10/2/02 4:14pm
Or the Hindu's in India
we are 900 million strong against the 150 million Muslims .
It is like rallying for the cause of De Klerk’s South African apart hate minority.
Allison,
Sorry Allison but that statement is completly false.
Take a look at some of the extremist mosques and madrass in Pakistan. See what they teach 7 year olds. In a nutshell we are on the same levels of monkeys. They consider ground that we walk on to be defiled. Take a look at some of their views and then try to tell me that in general Christians hate Muslims more.
Again I never aid it was soely about religion nor did I bring it up but tell me, what does the word Jihad, translate to ?
"Christians shot last week execution style in Pakistan and the 40 other Christians who were killed there as well."
They were Pakistani nationals, the only difference between the two ? The ones killed were Christian.
Look, I never brought religion up. I am not saying the 9-11 attackers main reason was religion, however it was a big part of it, bigger than you think Allison. There are a million articles written on Bin Ladens motives. I still have links to some I think, if you'd like I would be happy to dig them up. was it all of the reason, no, it was a combo of religious extremism driven by other factors. The factors didn't have to do with poverty as you proclaim. His main motivators were our support if Israel, our being in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War. Tie that in with him and his lackeys seeing everyone else who is called non believer to be on the level of dogs and referred to usually as infidels or the great satan.
>As for Bin Laden and other terrorists being fairly well off, that is good, but unless they are Republicans, it's not good enough. Some people are actually concerned also with the welfare of their fellow citizens and may still be outraged at the poverty of their nation even if they themselves are well off.
What does being a republican have to do with any of this ? Or are you saying only people who aren't republicans care about others. Righto. O.K
And the terrorists were downtrodden.
Naradar 10/2/02 8:22pm
Naradar,
I was making reference to the recent killings of Hindus by Muslims in India. I wasn't making a defense of either side, merely pointing out that sometimes people do kill for religious reasons. Geez.
will not dispute that at all - Luv2Fly 10/3/02 1:42pm
growing up in India, I have seen a lot of it.
Try this its fun: http://wfamilync.tripod.com/k3/Link.html
In framing the Constitution of the Confederate States, the authors adopted, with numerous elisions and additions, the language of the Constitution of the United States, and followed the same order of arrangement of articles and sections. The changes made in this adaptation of the old Constitution are here shown. The parts stricken out are enclosed in brackets, and the new matter added in framing the Confederate Constitution is printed in italics.
http://www.civilwarhome.com/csconstitution.htm
If you don't, fold, just go away.
There are places to argue the great issues of 1861. Did the South have a right to secede? Was the cause of the war slavery, or secession, or Lincoln's refusal to let the South go in peace? Or was it tariffs, or a desire of the South to separate from a North with which it has less and less in common? Did Lincoln fight the Civil War to free the slaves? Or only to restore the Union?
It would be as good a place as any. Open your mind and consider things other than what you have been spoon-fed, fold.
1865 Fort Fisher falls
Fort Fisher in North Carolina falls to Union forces, and Wilmington, the Confederacy's most important blockade-running port, is closed.
When President Lincoln declared a blockade of southern ports in 1861, Rebel engineers began construction on a fortress at the mouth of New Inlet, which provided access to Wilmington. Fort Fisher was constructed of timber and sand, and it posed a formidable challenge for the Yankees. The walls were more than 20 feet high and they bristled with large cannon. Land mines and palisades made from sharpened logs created even more obstacles for potential attackers.
Union leadership did not make Fort Fisher a high priority until the last year of the war. After the Federals closed Mobile Bay in August 1864, attention turned to shutting down Wilmington. Union ships moved into place in December and began a massive bombardment on Christmas Eve. The next day, a small force failed to capture the fort but the attempt was renewed in January. On January 13, a massive three-day bombardment began. On the third day, 9,000 Yankee infantry commanded by General Alfred Terry hit the beach and attacked Fort Fisher. The Confederates could not repulse the attack.
The damage was heavy on both sides: the Union suffered more than 900 Army casualties and 380 Navy casualties, and the Confederates suffered 500 killed or wounded and over 1,000 captured. After the loss of this last major Confederate port, it was only three months before the war concluded.
1861 Crittenden Compromise is killed in Senate
The Crittenden Compromise, the last chance to keep North and South together, dies in the U.S. Senate.
Proposed by Senator John J. Crittenden of Kentucky, the compromise was a series of constitutional amendments. The amendments would continue the old Missouri Compromise provisions of 1820, which divided the west along the latitude of 36º 30". North of this line, slavery was prohibited. The Missouri Compromise was negated by the Compromise of 1850, which allowed a vote by territorial residents (popular sovereignty) to decide the issue of slavery. Other amendments protected slavery in the District of Columbia, forbade federal interference with the interstate slave trade, and compensated owners whose slaves escaped to the free states.
Essentially, the Crittenden Compromise sought to alleviate all concerns of the southern states. Four states had already left the Union when it was proposed, but Crittenden hoped the compromise would lure them back. Crittenden thought he could muster support from both South and North and avert either a split of the nation or a civil war. The major problem with the plan was that it called for a complete compromise by the Republicans with virtually no concession on the part of the South. The Republican Party formed in 1854 solely for the purpose of opposing the expansion of slavery into the western territories, particularly the areas north of the Missouri Compromise line. Just six years later, the party elected a president, Abraham Lincoln, over the complete opposition of the slave states. Crittenden was asking the Republicans to abandon their most key issues.
The vote was 25 against the compromise and 23 in favor of it. All 25 votes against it were cast by Republicans, and six senators from states that were in the process of seceding abstained. One Republican editorial insisted that the party "cannot be made to surrender the fruits of its recent victory." There would be no compromise; with the secession of states continuing, the country marched inexorably towards civil war.
The war wasn't righteous. The north didn't fight to free the slaves. The end of slavery was incidental to the war. If the north were truly fighting to end slavery why didn't it declare war on Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware? All those states recognized slavery and three of them had large populations of slaves. Why didn't the Emancipation Proclamation emancipate the slaves in those states? It was because the war was about unification and not slavery.