Discussion: FOX News

[MessiahDecoy123]

This site gives a really good explanation of the reasons, using Primary Sources, its really interesting...you go down the first page to documents, and it gives each states documentation to their reasons.

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/learning_history/south_secede/south_secede_menu.cfm


And for those in college and high school taking history classes, this site is one of the best.

Yeah those documents don't disprove my point.

I maintain that if the incoming president had no intention of freeing the slaves the south would have never seceded.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I'm not sure that you can quantify that...I mean, will policy come from it? who knows... Should policy come from it? That's a question that has to be answered by our representatives... is that even what it was about? I don't know...

They are waiting on the numbers they got from the aerial views. Apparently those are the most accurate or something, I don't know how the police do that, but it usually takes a couple of days. I have heard numbers that are around 100s of 1,000s up to 87,000 -- 500,000 and 1 number was 1 million (very doubtful, very, very doubtful)..... but I have no idea. They will probably put out the Fire Department and Police Department numbers, that's usually what they do.

I don't know that there is some kind of a conspiracy or something to keep the numbers under wraps, the pictures I've seen the crowd was freaking enormous, buts that is often misguiding unless you know what the hell you are looking at, and I don't know how they estimate that.

They no longer do crowd estimates ever since Farrakhan sued due to allegedly low estimates from the million man march.

or so I've heard.

 

[AG1973]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Sounds Like Slavery was a considerable motivation for the southern states to secede from the union. [/FONT]

from: http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/learning_history/south_secede/south_secede_southcarolina.cfm
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the Institution of slavery has led to a disregard of their obligations.... [The northern] States...have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress, or render useless any attempt to execute them.... Thus the constitutional compact has been deliberately broken.... [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Those [non-slaveholding] States have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of Slavery; they have permitted the open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace...property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection. [/FONT]

Good Source Kel.

 

[Kelly]

They no longer do crowd estimates ever since Farrakhan sued due to allegedly low estimates from the million man march.

or so I've heard.

They will probably use estimates from a place called airphotos.com or something like that, that is what most news outlets use...

 

[Kelly]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Sounds Like Slavery was a considerable motivation for the southern states to secede from the union. [/FONT]

from: http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/learning_history/south_secede/south_secede_southcarolina.cfm

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the Institution of slavery has led to a disregard of their obligations.... [The northern] States...have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress, or render useless any attempt to execute them.... Thus the constitutional compact has been deliberately broken.... [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Those [non-slaveholding] States have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of Slavery; they have permitted the open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace...property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection. [/FONT]

Good Source Kel.

I love this source, I could spend hours on it...mainly because it uses so many primary sources. I don't give historians 2 minutes of my time if they can't base their opinions on primary sources.

Slavery was definitely a major reason....but is it "slavery" or simply "The right to slavery" I know there are only a few words difference, but there is a big difference in that.....All of the compromises, etc.....were pissing the state's off and they felt that the Federal Government was moving in on their territory as far as rights....NOW, were most of these compromises based on slavery....YES.

 

[AG1973]

I love this source, I could spend hours on it...mainly because it uses so many primary sources. I don't give historians 2 minutes of my time if they can't base their opinions on primary sources.

Slavery was definitely a major reason....but is it "slavery" or simply "The right to slavery" I know there are only a few words difference, but there is a big difference in that.....All of the compromises, etc.....were pissing the state's off and they felt that the Federal Government was moving in on their territory as far as rights....NOW, were most of these compromises based on slavery....YES.

I have never felt that Slavery was the cause of the civil war and I know that Lincoln did not free the slaves because he was an abolishonist. He knew that freeing slaves was a means to financially hinder the south, Lincoln also knew that poor southern whites had a severely lmited opportunity to get work if slavery remained an institution.

Lincoln actually wanted to send blacks back to Africa. If he would have lived he may have accomplished that. I am thankful he did not.

 

[Kelly]

I have never felt that Slavery was the cause of the civil war and I know that Lincoln did not free the slaves because he was an abolishonist. He knew that freeing slaves was a means to financially hinder the south, Lincoln also knew that poor southern whites had a severely lmited opportunity to get work if slavery remained an institution.

Lincoln actually wanted to send blacks back to Africa. If he would have lived he may have accomplished that. I am thankful he did not.

I've been at conferences where economists, geographers, historians, and sociologists spoke on the reasons for the Civil War. One thing that kept coming up was motives.....the southern states did not trust the motives of the northern states and their reasons for wanting slavery abolished. That only grew with each compromise...

 

[AG1973]

I've been at conferences where economists, geographers, historians, and sociologists spoke on the reasons for the Civil War. One thing that kept coming up was motives.....the southern states did not trust the motives of the northern states and their reasons for wanting slavery abolished. That only grew with each compromise...

Slavery was a hot button issue when the Constitution was being ratified and I imagine those feelings of mistrust was always under the surface.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I have never felt that Slavery was the cause of the civil war and I know that Lincoln did not free the slaves because he was an abolishonist. He knew that freeing slaves was a means to financially hinder the south, Lincoln also knew that poor southern whites had a severely lmited opportunity to get work if slavery remained an institution.

Lincoln actually wanted to send blacks back to Africa. If he would have lived he may have accomplished that. I am thankful he did not.

Is there actual proof that those were Lincoln's intentions?

I thought he considered relocating some blacks to a Latin American area.

 

[Heretic]

Lincoln did not free the slaves with the Emancipation Proclamation. What he did was free the slaves in the south...which had split from the United States...so he no authority over the slaves there...and it did NOT free the slaves in the north...which he did have control over. He freed absolutely no one, and it was merely a political ploy.

 

[AG1973]

Is there actual proof that those were Lincoln's intentions?

I thought he considered relocating some blacks to a Latin American area.

You are correct sending freed slaves south of the border was a consideration. As a matter of fact there were a considerable number of freed slaves that left the states and relocated on the some of the islands in the Atlantic.

I have to dig but this came up in my Constitutional Law class if I remember corectly the logistics of relocating freed slaves was an issue.

 

[Kelly]

Lincoln did not free the slaves with the Emancipation Proclamation. What he did was free the slaves in the south...which had split from the United States...so he no authority over the slaves there...and it did NOT free the slaves in the north...which he did have control over. He freed absolutely no one, and it was merely a political ploy.

[FONT=arial, HELVETICA] Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation: The End of Slavery in America, Allen Guelzo would disagree with you, but there are a number of histori[/FONT]ans who do agree with you.

 

[Kelly]

Slavery was a hot button issue when the Constitution was being ratified and I imagine those feelings of mistrust was always under the surface.

You should read the first draft of the Declaration of Independence, it is quite interesting.

http://wsu.edu/~dee/AMERICA/DECLAR.HTM

"He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither."

 

[Kelly]

Is there actual proof that those were Lincoln's intentions?

I thought he considered relocating some blacks to a Latin American area.

You are correct sending freed slaves south of the border was a consideration. As a matter of fact there were a considerable number of freed slaves that left the states and relocated on the some of the islands in the Atlantic.

I have to dig but this came up in my Constitutional Law class if I remember corectly the logistics of relocating freed slaves was an issue.

You guys might find this an interesting read...

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n5p-4_Morgan.html

 

[StorminNorman]

Marx is absolutely right about you. You say that Glen Beck is non partisan, but yet he invited Sara Palin to his event. Even though the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King gave an address as well, she is a conservative activist, and don't get me started on Marcus Luttrell. If Beck is supposedly non partisan, why did he not invite any Democrats or Independants to come and speak? You are either very foolish, or an out and out appologist for the Republican Party.

To act like Sarah Palin was a partisan, not an ideological pick, requires one to fake ignorance of the modern political climate. Sarah Palin is not a spokesperson from the GOP - she embarrasses many in it and has no official relationship at with the party. She has, in fact, campaigned AGAINST established party members.

Sarah Palin is the face of a portion of the Tea Party - which is goes along with Beck's IDEOLOGY quite nicely. John McCain would not have been allowed to speak. Olympia Snowe would not have been allowed to speak. The Party didn't matter, the beliefs did.

Just because Beck is not partisan doesn't mean he has to be bipartisan and make sure there were Democrats involved just so that multiple parties are represented. I never claimed Beck's event wasn't political, it was - it was a CONSERVATIVE event.

Again, Beck is a guy that bashes Teddy Roosevelt frequently, he says the Republicans and Democrats are both to blame and he frequently calls out Republican politicians. He was a big critic of Bush. To claim that Beck is a partisan, and not an ideologue, requires a large dose of either ignorance or delusion.

The motivation for secession is essentially irrelevant, the very act of the Federal government to allow and negotiate independence to states means that in order to be equal under the law, they would have to permit the same for any state seeking to do so. Which of meant that the Union would have disintegrated over time.

You don't understand the Constitution.

The Federal Government was a CREATION of the States. The States existed before the Federal Government and had just recently decided to scrap a previously failed national government. In no way did the States create the Federal government with the intentions of being unable to ever leave it.

The reason the Federal Government is a FEDERAL Government and not a National Government is because the Constitution was based on Federalism. The States retained their sovereignty as indicated by the 10th Amendment

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The states gave up certain powers - that is it.

Wasn't Michelle Bachmann there too? and If Normin wants I can provide him with hours of clips of Glenn railing on about the conspiracies that Obama and his people are up to. And if you go back and try to find the same kind of stuff on Bush good luck.

he can pretend to be non partisan all he wants. it's as believable as one of his conspiracy theories.

Beck called for Bush's impeachment. That good enough?

There is when you want objective reporting*

*I fully understand the arguement that Glenn Beck has stated mutiple times that he is not a news man. However there are many that look to him as such. This excuse does not apply though to equally ideological "reporters" Keith Olberman and others from across the political spectrum.

The people that look to Beck to be an objective newsman don't really have any interest in objective reporting. There is nothing wrong being political commentary.

Nazis are both as well.

So are their ideological cousins, the Progressives.

What state right was so sacred it overrided the freedom of 3.5 million slaves?

The south seceded because of slavery. Not because of "umbrella of state rights".

That's not entirely true.

For one, States Rights don't justify Slavery because Slavery went against the very principals America was founded on - Individual Rights. Slavery was evil and wrong and the greatest sin in national history (the damage it has done to America places it above any genocide).

That being said, the idea of States Rights has nothing to do with Slavery. The notion of States Rights was that the Federal Government did not have the ability to break outside the confines of the Constitution. The States were meant to keep the Federal Government small so we don't end up with a country like we have now.

America has to return to a government based off of them as well. It's would make America the best government in the world again. At it's bases, a return to a Federalist Constitutional Republic would allow a state like Massachusetts establish a socialist government while New Hampshire could establish a minimalist libertarian state.

Imagine the possibilities. People being able to choose between a market place of 50 states to which ever state best fit their ideology.

 

[Superman]

Lincoln did not free the slaves with the Emancipation Proclamation. What he did was free the slaves in the south...which had split from the United States...so he no authority over the slaves there...and it did NOT free the slaves in the north...which he did have control over. He freed absolutely no one, and it was merely a political ploy.

That may be true but isn't it also true that most if not all of the nothern states had already outlawed slavery by 1860?

Isn't it true that in 1804 New Jersey passed an emancipation law thus becoming the last of the nothern states above the Mason-Dixon Line to have laws either forbidding slavery or providing for its gradual elimination?

Lincoln didn't have to free the slaves in the north because there was none, They was already free.

 

[hippie_hunter]

That may be true but isn't it also true that most if not all of the nothern states had already outlawed slavery by 1860?

Isn't it true that in 1804 New Jersey passed an emancipation law thus becoming the last of the nothern states above the Mason-Dixon Line to have laws either forbidding slavery or providing for its gradual elimination?

Lincoln didn't have to free the slaves in the north because there was none, They was already free.

The Union still had slave states during the Civil War (West Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, Delaware, and Maryland). The Union also captured Tennessee and it too was exempt from the Emancipation Proclamation. Slavery was legal in the Territories due to the Dread Scott v. Sanford decision that said that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional and slavery could not be banned in the Territories. The New Orleans area of Louisiana and Hampton Roads and Eastern Shore areas of Virginia were exempt as well due to being under Union control. So there were lots of slaves that were in the Union, and Lincoln told them to go **** themselves.

Here's a map that shows where slavery was abolished and slavery was allowed through the Emancipation Proclamation:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/Emancipation_Proclamation.PNG

Maryland abolished slavery in 1864 when it adopted a new state constitution. Missouri abolished slavery in 1865 by an executive order by the governor. West Virginia abolished slavery in 1865 through the legislature in anticipation of the Thirteenth Amendment. Tennessee abolished slavery through a state constitutional amendment in 1865. Delaware and Kentucky rejected the Thirteenth Amendment so slavery was abolished when it was ratified.

 

[dnno1]

To act like Sarah Palin was a partisan, not an ideological pick, requires one to fake ignorance of the modern political climate. Sarah Palin is not a spokesperson from the GOP - she embarrasses many in it and has no official relationship at with the party. She has, in fact, campaigned AGAINST established party members.

Sarah Palin is the face of a portion of the Tea Party - which is goes along with Beck's IDEOLOGY quite nicely. John McCain would not have been allowed to speak. Olympia Snowe would not have been allowed to speak. The Party didn't matter, the beliefs did.

Just because Beck is not partisan doesn't mean he has to be bipartisan and make sure there were Democrats involved just so that multiple parties are represented. I never claimed Beck's event wasn't political, it was - it was a CONSERVATIVE event.

Again, Beck is a guy that bashes Teddy Roosevelt frequently, he says the Republicans and Democrats are both to blame and he frequently calls out Republican politicians. He was a big critic of Bush. To claim that Beck is a partisan, and not an ideologue, requires a large dose of either ignorance or delusion.

Pailn is partisan. The mere fact that she has aligned herself with the Tea Part indicates her partisanship. She has only backed conservative candidates and never once backed a democrat, a liberal or a progressive. She has even instructed members of the Tea Party to vote Republican. Theses are signs of partisanship. As far as Glenn Beck goes, his adgenda is more to purify the party and to besmirch the left as the bad guys than to endorse candidates. Inspite of that the mere fact that he promotes Republican values and demonizes those of the opposition is an affirmation of his partisanship. As far as being a critic of George W. Bush, I can hardly take him seriously when he has said things like this about the man in the past:


[YT]Wo3ltG0gwjY[/YT]

or this:

[YT]n_wMmV0IyiM[/YT]

 

[Kelly]

Pailn is partisan. The mere fact that she has aligned herself with the Tea Part indicates her partisanship. She has only backed conservative candidates and never once backed a democrat, a liberal or a progressive. She has even instructed members of the Tea Party to vote Republican. Theses are signs of partisanship. As far as Glenn Beck goes, his adgenda is more to purify the party and to besmirch the left as the bad guys than to endorse candidates. Inspite of that the mere fact that he promotes Republican values and demonizes those of the opposition is an affirmation of his partisanship. As far as being a critic of George W. Bush, I can hardly take him seriously when he has said things like this about the man in the past:


[YT]Wo3ltG0gwjY[/YT]

or this:

[YT]n_wMmV0IyiM[/YT]

Hell, what politician ISN'T partisan to some extent...

 

[hippie_hunter]

She has only backed conservative candidates and never once backed a democrat, a liberal or a progressive.

I seriously want you to think about this.....think really, really, hard.

WHY WOULD SHE?!

Palin is not a liberal or progressive. And no Democrat is going to become a part of the Tea Party, Paul or Palin faction. So why would she back a liberal, progressive, or Democratic candidate. Palin endorsing a liberal or progressive candidate would be like the Daily Kos endorsing Michelle Bachman. This is common sense.

Norman is absolutely right in this case though. You really can't call Palin a Republican anymore. She's an annoying conservative activist now and she goes off giving her support towards conservative candidates such as Doug Hoffman, the nominee of the Conservative Party, over Dede Scozzafava, the Republican nominee in the NY-23 Special Election. She supports more conservative candidates in primaries such as Rand Paul of Kentucky and Joe Miller of Alaska over party preferred candidates Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Greyson and Senior Senator Lisa Murkowski.

She isn't a partisan, she's an ideologist. The Tea Party is not a Republican movement, it's a conservative movement. Conservative does not equal Republican. Just like how liberal or progressive does not equal Democrat.

 

[Hobodeluxe]

I seriously want you to think about this.....think really, really, hard.

WHY WOULD SHE?!

Palin is not a liberal or progressive. And no Democrat is going to become a part of the Tea Party, Paul or Palin faction. So why would she back a liberal, progressive, or Democratic candidate. Palin endorsing a liberal or progressive candidate would be like the Daily Kos endorsing Michelle Bachman. This is common sense.

Norman is absolutely right in this case though. You really can't call Palin a Republican anymore. She's an annoying conservative activist now and she goes off giving her support towards conservative candidates such as Doug Hoffman, the nominee of the Conservative Party, over Dede Scozzafava, the Republican nominee in the NY-23 Special Election. She supports more conservative candidates in primaries such as Rand Paul of Kentucky and Joe Miller of Alaska over party preferred candidates Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Greyson and Senior Senator Lisa Murkowski.

She isn't a partisan, she's an ideologist. The Tea Party is not a Republican movement, it's a conservative movement. Conservative does not equal Republican. Just like how liberal or progressive does not equal Democrat.

nah she's partisan alright. ultra partisan to the point that anyone with even a hint of moderation to them is a target. she loves the GOP so much she is trying to cull the chaff and show them the way. make them see the error of their ways. which is any form of concession or compromise. She's also the darling of the oil companies. In short she's Bush in a skirt.

 

[hippie_hunter]

nah she's partisan alright. ultra partisan to the point that anyone with even a hint of moderation to them is a target. she loves the GOP so much she is trying to cull the chaff and show them the way. make them see the error of their ways. which is any form of concession or compromise.. all of them moving in lockstep and of one accord. She wants to turn the party into a religious/political party. Take it even further than Bush did.
She wants a theocracy.

She partakes in Republican politics because the Republican Party is the conservative party of the United States. So if a conservative movement wants to hijack a political party to bend to their goals, they're going to hijack the Republican Party. Just like how a progressive or liberal movement would hijack the Democratic Party.

If Palin were a partisan she would be touting the party line, endorsing party preferred candidates, continue being governor of Alaska, and be a good little girl. She's an extremist ideologist.

I'm not going to defend her because she irritates the living crap out of me. She's taking the Tea Party in the wrong direction and I hope the Ron Paul faction will eventually get rid of her. But the fact is, she is not a partisan.

 

[Hobodeluxe]

She partakes in Republican politics because the Republican Party is the conservative party of the United States. So if a conservative movement wants to hijack a political party to bend to their goals, they're going to hijack the Republican Party. Just like how a progressive or liberal movement would hijack the Democratic Party.

If Palin were a partisan she would be touting the party line, endorsing party preferred candidates, continue being governor of Alaska, and be a good little girl. She's an extremist ideologist.

I'm not going to defend her because she irritates the living crap out of me. She's taking the Tea Party in the wrong direction and I hope the Ron Paul faction will eventually get rid of her. But the fact is, she is not a partisan.

as long as they're voting for republicans it's the republican party okay.
as long as they're caucusing with the republicans they count as republicans. when I see a tea party candidate running against a republican in the general with Palin's endorsement then I'll believe.

 

[Schlosser85]

....Palin has endorsed Tea Party candidates running against Republicans

 

[hippie_hunter]

as long as they're voting for republicans it's the republican party okay.
as long as they're caucusing with the republicans they count as republicans. when I see a tea party candidate running against a republican in the general with Palin's endorsement then I'll believe.

Remember NY-23? Where Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman, who was backed by a Sarah Palin/Glenn Beck endorsment, ran against Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava. It's already freaking happened and it backfired against the Tea Party badly on a night where moderate Scott Brown won, conservative Bob McDonnell won by running a campaign that stayed as far away from the Tea Party as possible, and Democrat Bill Owens won NY-23, a district that hadn't elected a Democrat in a 140 years.

And they continue to do so in primaries where the Tea Party is voting for candidates like Sharron Angle, Rand Paul, Joe Miller, and Ken Buck over party preferred candidates like State GOP Chairwoman Sue Lowden, Trey Greyson, Senator Lisa Murkowski, and Lt. Governor Jane Norton

They aren't Republicans, they're conservatives. Conservatives who are trying to hijack the Republican Party, but they're conservatives first and foremost. They put ideology above party. As opposed to most Democrats and Republicans currently in our government who put party above ideology.