|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 27,692
Campfire Ranger
|
OP
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 27,692 |
Oh, in case you wondered, I really enjoy reading about WWI aviation. 
Member: Clan of the Turdlike People.
Courage is Fear that has said its Prayers
�If we ever forget that we are one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.� Ronald Reagan.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 27,692
Campfire Ranger
|
|
OP
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 27,692 |
Another WWI Aviator that is largely forgotten: Roland Garros
Member: Clan of the Turdlike People.
Courage is Fear that has said its Prayers
�If we ever forget that we are one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.� Ronald Reagan.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,846 Likes: 10
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,846 Likes: 10 |
Back to the Civil War. I'm reading "The Clansman"...the book that was the basis for "Birth of a Nation".
So, anyway, here is what Wiki says was the motivation of the author to write the story:
Dixon wrote The Clansman as a message to Northerners to maintain racial segregation, as the work claimed that blacks when free would turn savage and violent, committing crimes such as murder, rape and robbery far out of proportion to their percentage of the population.
Hmmm...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 27,692
Campfire Ranger
|
|
OP
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 27,692 |
Back to the Civil War. I'm reading "The Clansman"...the book that was the basis for "Birth of a Nation".
So, anyway, here is what Wiki says was the motivation of the author to write the story:
Dixon wrote The Clansman as a message to Northerners to maintain racial segregation, as the work claimed that blacks when free would turn savage and violent, committing crimes such as murder, rape and robbery far out of proportion to their percentage of the population.
Hmmm... Do they have a citation for that quote?
Member: Clan of the Turdlike People.
Courage is Fear that has said its Prayers
�If we ever forget that we are one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.� Ronald Reagan.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
Back to the Civil War. I'm reading "The Clansman"...the book that was the basis for "Birth of a Nation".
So, anyway, here is what Wiki says was the motivation of the author to write the story:
Dixon wrote The Clansman as a message to Northerners to maintain racial segregation, as the work claimed that blacks when free would turn savage and violent, committing crimes such as murder, rape and robbery far out of proportion to their percentage of the population.
Hmmm... Do they have a citation for that quote? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Clansman:_An_Historical_Romance_of_the_Ku_Klux_Klan
Last edited by 4ager; 07/13/15.
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 27,692
Campfire Ranger
|
|
OP
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 27,692 |
An interesting article on Woodrow Wilson, the beau ideal of many in the progressive left: http://www.bu.edu/professorvoices/2...ttitudes-and-policies-of-woodrow-wilson/
Member: Clan of the Turdlike People.
Courage is Fear that has said its Prayers
�If we ever forget that we are one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.� Ronald Reagan.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 27,692
Campfire Ranger
|
|
OP
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 27,692 |
There is a citation to the wiki quote. I will have to see if I can dig up a copy of the source and check it.
Member: Clan of the Turdlike People.
Courage is Fear that has said its Prayers
�If we ever forget that we are one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.� Ronald Reagan.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,846 Likes: 10
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,846 Likes: 10 |
I don't know if he actually said that, just that wiki says that is why he wrote the book.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 37,960 Likes: 8
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 37,960 Likes: 8 |
Dixon wrote The Clansman as a message to Northerners to maintain racial segregation, as the work claimed that blacks when free would turn savage and violent, committing crimes such as murder, rape and robbery far out of proportion to their percentage of the population.
Hmmm... Well hey, we really needed another thread around here devoted to the failings of the American Black community, thanks  But... on the topic, I'm trying to recall the name of a book I picked up years ago at the bookstore at the Chickamauga Battlefield Park, the book originally being one of those WPA-funded endeavors of the '30's, where people went around and interviewed folks born into slavery to get their testimonies while they were still alive. More than a few of these elderly people interviewed referenced the crime problems in their communities subsequent to emancipation. Some even stated that the young male miscreants in their communities would have been better controlled under slavery. Birdwatcher
"...if the gentlemen of Virginia shall send us a dozen of their sons, we would take great care in their education, instruct them in all we know, and make men of them." Canasatego 1744
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 37,960 Likes: 8
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 37,960 Likes: 8 |
Still chipping away at Tindall and Shi's textbook America: A Narrative History, thank you for the recommendation.
Like most prob'ly most guys here when it comes to history I'm most interested in blood and guts ie. wars,tactics and weaponry. This book ain't about that.
Another interest of mine has long been the spread of Euro technology to the Indian side of the Frontier and reciprocal effects (for example the folks at Americanlongrifles.com have it that our iconic American longrifle was developed specifically for the mid-18th Cent. Indian trade). Tindall and Shi leave off the Indians all in bark longhouses of course which was actually largely out of date pretty early, and certainly was by the Rev. War.
However, where Tindall and Shi really start firing on all cylinders IMHO and the book steps up is Chapter Six entitled Shaping a Federal Union., detailing the initial Confederation of States and then the composing of the American Constitution in 1787.
It is interesting that the formal US ban on slavery in new territories that would later so rile the collective South actually precedes the US Constitution. The authors do not elaborate upon how that came to be.
Anyways, Chapter Six, some quotes:
Ben Franklin's opinion on the Constitution....
On October 10, 1788, the Confederation Congress transacted its last business and passed into history. "Our constitution is in actual operation." the elderly Ben Franklin wrote to a friend."Everything seems to promise it will last, but in this world nothing is certain but death and taxes."
I dunno if that is the origin of that popular saying.
George Washington hisself, who had rather distantly presided over the oppressively hot and uncomfortable four-month process at Independence Hall was notably pessimistic....
"I do not expect the Constitution to last for more than twenty years."
...and lending credence to recent "Constitution as a living document" arguments from the Left the authors state in their closing paragraph of the chapter...
The Constitution has been neither a static abstraction nor a "a machine that would go of itself" as the poet James Russell Lowell would later assert. Instead it has provided a flexible system of government that presidents, legislators, judges, and the people have modified to accord with a fallible human nature and changing social, economic and political circumstances.....
And, specifically relevant to this thread; here is the very last sentence of this excellent chapter where the authors close with this....
But the framers of the Constitution failed in one significant respect. In skirting the issue of slavery so as to cement the new union, they unknowingly allowed tensions over the "peculiar institution" to reach the point where there would be no political solution - only civil war.
Birdwatcher
"...if the gentlemen of Virginia shall send us a dozen of their sons, we would take great care in their education, instruct them in all we know, and make men of them." Canasatego 1744
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 37,960 Likes: 8
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 37,960 Likes: 8 |
From Chapter 5: The American Revolution
THE PARADOX OF SLAVERY
The Revolutionary generation of leaders was the first to confront the issue of slavery and to consider abolishing it....
In the northern states, which had fewer slaves than the southern, the doctrines of liberty led swiftly to emancipation for all either during the fighting or shortly afterward.
South of Pennsylvania the potential consequences of emancipation were so staggering - South Carolina had a black majority - that whites refused to extend the principle of liberty to their slaves.
The book goes on to state that at least the restrictions for manumission (freeing ones slaves) were relaxed in Virginia for one, as 10,000 were in that state alone during the 1780's (By way of contrast, the book states that 55,000 slaves had fled to the North and freedom during the American Revolution).
Worth noting that stricter manumission regulations were later applied in some locations, the presence of freed slaves coming to be regarded as a problem.
Birdwatcher
"...if the gentlemen of Virginia shall send us a dozen of their sons, we would take great care in their education, instruct them in all we know, and make men of them." Canasatego 1744
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,846 Likes: 10
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,846 Likes: 10 |
There is a quote from the Delaware legislature in the 1790s whereby they made it a crime for slave owners to manumit their slaves without legislative approval. The quote said something about freed slaves being "slothful and a burden upon their neighborhoods..."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 31,651 Likes: 8
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 31,651 Likes: 8 |
This is why I almost puked when I was at the local premiere of "The Patriot". When Mel Gibson told the Brit Officer, that he owned no slaves. These were all free men who worked for him!!! Guffaws of laughter from peanut gallery.
Gimme a break Hollyweird!!
Founder
Ancient Order of the 1895 Winchester
"Come, shall we go and kill us venison?
And yet it irks me the poor dappled fools,
Being native burghers of this desert city,
Should in their own confines with forked heads
Have their round haunches gored."
WS
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,846 Likes: 10
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,846 Likes: 10 |
I've got a book written in the 1920s by a man who was from my hometown. He was the state attorney general and it was a autobiography and stories from his youth.
Anyway, he grew up in the 1870s and 1880s and they were fairly well-to-do with both black and white hired hands. He said that as a boy white bums would come through from time to time asking for handouts and the like but that there never were any black bums who would wander through. He related that one day when they were out working and all taking a break, he asked the black hands why they never saw any black bums. He said one of them responded, "Well, sir, when a black man gets down on his luck, he jes goes to preachin."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 31,651 Likes: 8
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 31,651 Likes: 8 |
That's a good one Joe Bob!!
Founder
Ancient Order of the 1895 Winchester
"Come, shall we go and kill us venison?
And yet it irks me the poor dappled fools,
Being native burghers of this desert city,
Should in their own confines with forked heads
Have their round haunches gored."
WS
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,846 Likes: 10
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,846 Likes: 10 |
Historical Ignorance
By Walter E. Williams
July 14, 2015
The victors of war write its history in order to cast themselves in the most favorable light. That explains the considerable historical ignorance about our war of 1861 and panic over the Confederate flag. To create better understanding, we have to start a bit before the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.
The 1783 Treaty of Paris ended the war between the colonies and Great Britain. Its first article declared the 13 colonies “to be free, sovereign and independent states.” These 13 sovereign nations came together in 1787 as principals and created the federal government as their agent. Principals have always held the right to fire agents. In other words, states held a right to withdraw from the pact — secede.
During the 1787 Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made that would allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison rejected it, saying, “A union of the states containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.”
In fact, the ratification documents of Virginia, New York and Rhode Island explicitly said they held the right to resume powers delegated should the federal government become abusive of those powers. The Constitution never would have been ratified if states thought they could not regain their sovereignty — in a word, secede.
On March 2, 1861, after seven states seceded and two days before Abraham Lincoln’s inauguration, Sen. James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin proposed a constitutional amendment that read, “No state or any part thereof, heretofore admitted or hereafter admitted into the union, shall have the power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States.”
Several months earlier, Reps. Daniel E. Sickles of New York, Thomas B. Florence of Pennsylvania and Otis S.
Ferry of Connecticut proposed a constitutional amendment to prohibit secession. Here’s a question for the reader: Would there have been any point to offering these amendments if secession were already unconstitutional?
On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel of Maryland said, “Any attempt to preserve the union between the states of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty.”
Both Northern Democratic and Republican Parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace. Just about every major Northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South’s right to secede. New York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): “If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861.” Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): “An attempt to subjugate the seceded states, even if successful, could produce nothing but evil — evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content.” The New York Times (March 21, 1861): “There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go.”
The War of 1861 settled the issue of secession through brute force that cost 600,000 American lives. We Americans celebrate Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, but H.L. Mencken correctly evaluated the speech: “It is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense.” Lincoln said the soldiers sacrificed their lives “to the cause of self-determination — that government of the people, by the people, for the people should not perish from the earth.” Mencken says: “It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of people to govern themselves.”
The War of 1861 brutally established that states could not secede. We are still living with its effects. Because states cannot secede, the federal government can run roughshod over the U.S. Constitution’s limitations of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. States have little or no response.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
Historical Ignorance
By Walter E. Williams
July 14, 2015
The victors of war write its history in order to cast themselves in the most favorable light. That explains the considerable historical ignorance about our war of 1861 and panic over the Confederate flag. To create better understanding, we have to start a bit before the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.
The 1783 Treaty of Paris ended the war between the colonies and Great Britain. Its first article declared the 13 colonies “to be free, sovereign and independent states.” These 13 sovereign nations came together in 1787 as principals and created the federal government as their agent. Principals have always held the right to fire agents. In other words, states held a right to withdraw from the pact — secede.
During the 1787 Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made that would allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison rejected it, saying, “A union of the states containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.”
In fact, the ratification documents of Virginia, New York and Rhode Island explicitly said they held the right to resume powers delegated should the federal government become abusive of those powers. The Constitution never would have been ratified if states thought they could not regain their sovereignty — in a word, secede.
On March 2, 1861, after seven states seceded and two days before Abraham Lincoln’s inauguration, Sen. James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin proposed a constitutional amendment that read, “No state or any part thereof, heretofore admitted or hereafter admitted into the union, shall have the power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States.”
Several months earlier, Reps. Daniel E. Sickles of New York, Thomas B. Florence of Pennsylvania and Otis S.
Ferry of Connecticut proposed a constitutional amendment to prohibit secession. Here’s a question for the reader: Would there have been any point to offering these amendments if secession were already unconstitutional?
On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel of Maryland said, “Any attempt to preserve the union between the states of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty.”
Both Northern Democratic and Republican Parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace. Just about every major Northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South’s right to secede. New York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): “If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861.” Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): “An attempt to subjugate the seceded states, even if successful, could produce nothing but evil — evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content.” The New York Times (March 21, 1861): “There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go.”
The War of 1861 settled the issue of secession through brute force that cost 600,000 American lives. We Americans celebrate Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, but H.L. Mencken correctly evaluated the speech: “It is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense.” Lincoln said the soldiers sacrificed their lives “to the cause of self-determination — that government of the people, by the people, for the people should not perish from the earth.” Mencken says: “It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of people to govern themselves.”
The War of 1861 brutally established that states could not secede. We are still living with its effects. Because states cannot secede, the federal government can run roughshod over the U.S. Constitution’s limitations of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. States have little or no response.
Exactly. Figure, too, that the Federal Government indicted Jefferson Davis on charges of treason specifically related to the Southern secession. Davis demanded trial. The Federal government postponed and continued the case SEVEN TIMES, each time over the objection of Davis and his counsel as they were ready to proceed. After the final postponement and continuation, the Federal judge dismissed the charges against Davis. If secession were unconstitutional and therefore clearly an act of treason, the Feds would have had the easiest case in history to make; not one that they ran from seven times. I believe I went over secession as a Constitutional argument earlier in another thread. See here: http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/10087850
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 12,530
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 12,530 |
Thanks for posting that JoeBob. I'm sure someone will chime in it was all about slavery 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
Thanks for posting that JoeBob. I'm sure someone will chime in it was all about slavery Ya think? Gee, I wonder who it will be (to deny history and fact, as well as logic and consistency, yet again)?
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
|
|
|
|
|
573 members (257man, 1beaver_shooter, 260Remguy, 117LBS, 1badf350, 58 invisible),
1,924
guests, and
1,297
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,194,264
Posts18,525,337
Members74,031
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
