[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

Just visit and have a Latest Hotel Stay for One Month Free

loveucap

5/13/2009 8:44:00 AM

Just Visit the Web site and click the category below and then get the
one month Hotel Stay free with Visa and Ticket Just for One click On
any category

Flora Apartments Dubai
Jumeirah Beach Residence
Palm Island Dubai
Dubai Tours and Tourism
Best Company for Dubai Tours Best
Dubai Airport DXB Hotels
Find Low Hotel Prices
Dubai Business Service
Budget Lodging Vienna
Dubai Weddings 2009
Flora Apartments Dubai
Hotel Apartments in MK
Are you a Export Agency

Plzz visit and click The Category below

http://www.laxhotel.blo...
8 Answers

Jerry Kraus

6/19/2014 11:06:00 PM

0

On Thursday, June 19, 2014 5:50:35 PM UTC-5, David Tenner wrote:
> jerry kraus <jkraus1999@gmail.com> wrote in
>
> news:f284b7d6-10cd-423f-b411-e9b94eb96c6f@googlegroups.com :
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> > Why would large states accept having less say in government? They
>
> > won't.
>
>
>
> They might make some concessions if it was necessary to get the Constitution
>
> ratified. Remember, they still would have some advantages--the US House
>
> would still be apportioned by population. And the fact that for some years,
>
> some large states did choose their electors by district (e.g., Virginia and
>
> Massachusetts in 1796) may indicate that this would not be a crucial issue to
>
> them in 1788.
>
>
>
> >
>
> > There's no need for a change in the Constitution to avert he U.S Civil
>
> > War. Just don't have the Mexican-American War, which is what caused the
>
> > U.S. Civil War -- all that new territory for the Southern States to
>
> > fight over, and Southerners starting to think they were invincible.
>
>
>
> It is certainly plausbile that without the Mexican War, there would be no
>
> ACW--but (1) this is open to the same objection you make to my proposal
>
> ("Good heavens, David, you seem to be arguing that the only way to avert the
>
> American Civil War is to keep slavery legal forever"). Without the post-
>
> Mexican War controversy over slavery in the territories and the resulting ACW
>
> [1], slavery would have been around a lot longer. Let me emphasize that I am
>
> *not* saying that the ACW was a greater evil than tolerating the more or less
>
> indefinite continuation of slavery. What I *am* saying is that this indeed
>
> may have been the choice. (2) I never said that changing the Constitution was
>
> the *only* possible way to avert the ACW, or that after the Constitution in
>
> its present form was ratified, civil war was inevitable. I am merely
>
> exploring a change in the Constitution as *one* possible way of averting the
>
> ACW.
>
>
>
>
>
> > The U.S. Constitution hasn't much to do with anything. It's always been
>
> > taken with a grain of salt, with everyone saying everything everyone
>
> > else wants to do is unconstitutional.
>
> >
>
>
>
> No doubt this is true of some provisions of the Constitution. But a
>
> provision that electors are chosen by congressional district is relatively
>
> unambiguous and enforceable. (Of course it provides an additional incentive
>
> for gerrymandering, but that is another matter. And even with
>
> gerrymandering, anti-anti-slavery forces will win a substantial number of
>
> northern congressional districts and therefore northern electoral votes in
>
> this ATL. Again, I am *not* saying that avoiding the ACW in this way would
>
> be a Good Thing.)
>
>
>
> [1] True, thw ACW did not emerge as a *direct* reault of the controversy over
>
> the Mexican Cession. But it was in that controversy that the doctrien of
>
> Popular Soverignty emerged, which was later to play such a fatal role in the
>
> Kansas-Nebraska question.
>
>
>
> --
>
> David Tenner
>
> dtenner@ameritech.net

Many historians argue that the very reason for the Civil War is that smaller states had too much power, and they were abusing it. You seem to be assuming that the reason for the Civil War is that the South had "had enough" and wanted to leave. If that was all there was to it, the North would have been more than happy to see them go. It was precisely because the Southern States were attacking Northern interests through the fugitive slave act, attacks in Kansas, and increasing arguments that they were "natural aristocrats" and that Northerners, as a group, should be their slaves as well, that the U.S. Civil War occurred.

In other words, the Civil War had nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with power. The South wanted more than their share, and the North had had enough of them. The South didn't want to secede from the North, they wanted to take it over. The North said no. "Secession" would only have been a temporary step leading to chronic warfare between North and South.

David Tenner

6/20/2014 7:08:00 AM

0

jerry kraus <jkraus1999@gmail.com> wrote in
news:4b8698c4-e479-45d1-8942-c49667cd761d@googlegroups.com:


>
> Many historians argue that the very reason for the Civil War is that
> smaller states had too much power, and they were abusing it. You seem
> to be assuming that the reason for the Civil War is that the South had
> "had enough" and wanted to leave. If that was all there was to it, the
> North would have been more than happy to see them go. It was precisely
> because the Southern States were attacking Northern interests through
> the fugitive slave act, attacks in Kansas, and increasing arguments that
> they were "natural aristocrats" and that Northerners, as a group, should
> be their slaves as well, that the U.S. Civil War occurred.
>
> In other words, the Civil War had nothing to do with politics, and
> everything to do with power. The South wanted more than their share,
> and the North had had enough of them. The South didn't want to secede
> from the North, they wanted to take it over. The North said no.
> "Secession" would only have been a temporary step leading to chronic
> warfare between North and South.
>

Look, I take it for granted that the southern states would not have seceded
if the South could have maintained its (admittedly disproportionate) power in
the Union. It had largely though not totally succeeded in doing so for
decades with the help of northern "doughfaces." My argument is that with a
different presidential electoral system provided for in the Constitution, it
might have succeded in doing so well after 1860, despite the North's
population advantage, because there were a considerable number of non-
Republican congressional districts in the North and virtually no Republican
ones in the South. I am not saying that preventing secession and civil war
in this manner would have been a good thing. No doubt it would have given a
longer life to slavery. But I raised a specific question: what plausible
changes in the Constitution *that could plausibly have been adopted in 1787*
could have prevented the ACW, at least as we know it? And a constitutional
requirement that electors be chosen by congressional district seems to me to
be one such change..

--
David Tenner
dtenner@ameritech.net

Jerry Kraus

6/20/2014 5:40:00 PM

0

On Friday, June 20, 2014 2:07:40 AM UTC-5, David Tenner wrote:
> jerry kraus <jkraus1999@gmail.com> wrote in
>
> news:4b8698c4-e479-45d1-8942-c49667cd761d@googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> > Many historians argue that the very reason for the Civil War is that
>
> > smaller states had too much power, and they were abusing it. You seem
>
> > to be assuming that the reason for the Civil War is that the South had
>
> > "had enough" and wanted to leave. If that was all there was to it, the
>
> > North would have been more than happy to see them go. It was precisely
>
> > because the Southern States were attacking Northern interests through
>
> > the fugitive slave act, attacks in Kansas, and increasing arguments that
>
> > they were "natural aristocrats" and that Northerners, as a group, should
>
> > be their slaves as well, that the U.S. Civil War occurred.
>
> >
>
> > In other words, the Civil War had nothing to do with politics, and
>
> > everything to do with power. The South wanted more than their share,
>
> > and the North had had enough of them. The South didn't want to secede
>
> > from the North, they wanted to take it over. The North said no.
>
> > "Secession" would only have been a temporary step leading to chronic
>
> > warfare between North and South.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Look, I take it for granted that the southern states would not have seceded
>
> if the South could have maintained its (admittedly disproportionate) power in
>
> the Union. It had largely though not totally succeeded in doing so for
>
> decades with the help of northern "doughfaces." My argument is that with a
>
> different presidential electoral system provided for in the Constitution, it
>
> might have succeded in doing so well after 1860, despite the North's
>
> population advantage, because there were a considerable number of non-
>
> Republican congressional districts in the North and virtually no Republican
>
> ones in the South. I am not saying that preventing secession and civil war
>
> in this manner would have been a good thing. No doubt it would have given a
>
> longer life to slavery. But I raised a specific question: what plausible
>
> changes in the Constitution *that could plausibly have been adopted in 1787*
>
> could have prevented the ACW, at least as we know it? And a constitutional
>
> requirement that electors be chosen by congressional district seems to me to
>
> be one such change..
>
>
>
> --
>
> David Tenner
>
> dtenner@ameritech.net

You are also assuming that the American Civil War didn't start until it was officially declared. Actually, it started just after the Mexican-American War. Possibly the constitutional changes you suggest might make the escalation of this civil war more gradual, possibly not. By 1860, the North had had enough. One way or another, they will increase their direct military confrontation with the South at this stage, quite regardless of legal niceties, constitutional changes or specific electoral results.

The Horny Goat

6/20/2014 11:51:00 PM

0

On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 10:40:10 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus
<jkraus1999@gmail.com> wrote:

>You are also assuming that the American Civil War didn't start until it was officially declared. Actually, it started just after the Mexican-American War. Possibly the constitutional changes you suggest might make the escalation of this civil war more gradual, possibly not. By 1860, the North had had enough. One way or another, they will increase their direct military confrontation with the South at this stage, quite regardless of legal niceties, constitutional changes or specific electoral results.


Perhaps but "war" in Congress is far better than war on battlefields.

As somebody who you don't like very much said "Jaw jaw is better than
war war!"

Jerry Kraus

6/21/2014 7:38:00 PM

0

On Friday, June 20, 2014 6:50:54 PM UTC-5, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 10:40:10 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus
>
> <jkraus1999@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >You are also assuming that the American Civil War didn't start until it was officially declared. Actually, it started just after the Mexican-American War. Possibly the constitutional changes you suggest might make the escalation of this civil war more gradual, possibly not. By 1860, the North had had enough. One way or another, they will increase their direct military confrontation with the South at this stage, quite regardless of legal niceties, constitutional changes or specific electoral results.
>
>
> Perhaps but "war" in Congress is far better than war on battlefields.
>
But it wasn't just war in Congress. There was active military confrontation between North and South throughout the 1850's, with many deaths, particularly in Kansas, New England and, of course, John Brown's failed raid on Harper's Ferry -- and it was escalating, with no need for any declaration of war. Northerners were not prepared to be made the slaves of the South by Congressional decree. They were ready to fight, one way, or another.




>
> As somebody who you don't like very much said "Jaw jaw is better than
>
> war war!"

Depends on the stakes involved. As Churchill would, no doubt, have agreed.

David Tenner

6/21/2014 8:51:00 PM

0

jerry kraus <jkraus1999@gmail.com> wrote in
news:401e6fb3-a6d4-415e-b9bc-665a6049191f@googlegroups.com:


>>
> But it wasn't just war in Congress. There was active military
> confrontation between North and South throughout the 1850's, with many
> deaths, particularly in Kansas, New England and, of course, John Brown's
> failed raid on Harper's Ferry -- and it was escalating, with no need for
> any declaration of war. Northerners were not prepared to be made the
> slaves of the South by Congressional decree. They were ready to fight,
> one way, or another.

On Kansas: Dale F. Watts, "How Bloody Was Bleeding Kansas?"
http://www.kshs.org/publicat/history/1995summer... has an
interesting discussion:

"A careful search of representative sources reveals a total of 157 violent
deaths during the territorial period. Of these, fifty-six may be attributed
with some confidence to the political conflict or the slavery issue. The
remaining 101 killings comprise fifty-two resulting from personal conflicts
such as fights or brawls, seventeen stemming directly from land disputes,
eleven from lynchings, and five occurring during robberies. In sixteen
cases information is insufficient to determine a primary motivation. Of
these 101 slayings, twenty-five may have had politics or slavery as a
significant contributing cause, but primarily they were the result of other
factors."

Watts gives the number of people killed in political violence during the
territorial period as follows:

1854 = 0
1855 = 4
1856 = 38
1857 = 6
1858 = 3
1859 = 3
1860 = 2
1861 = 0

Of course, as Watts observes, "One should not make light of the armed
attacks that wounded but did not kill, nor of the arson that destroyed
households and means of livelihood but did not kill, nor of the threats
that drove settlers away but did not kill. These all merged with the
killings and the rumors of killings to produce a sometimes frightful
environment in which to live. However, it is important to keep in mind the
relatively small number of actual killings that occurred in this
environment. It is almost infinitesimal when compared with the 583 people
estimated to have died violently during 1855 in California and the 1,200
who died in San Francisco between 1850 and 1853." (Note that the great
majority of political killings in Kansas happened in one year, 1856.)

As for Harpers Ferry, very, very few northerners approved of the raid
itself, though a much larger number admired Brown's courage.

One should also note that people were killed in anti-Catholic violence in
antebellum America, too:
http://philadelphiaencyclopedia.org/archive/nativist-riot... That
did not make a war between Protestants and Catholics inevitable...

--
David Tenner
dtenner@ameritech.net

Rich Rostrom

6/25/2014 6:49:00 PM

0

David Tenner <dtenner@ameritech.net> wrote:

Mr. Tenner, you're wrestling a pig.

Mr. Kraus has a limited connection to historical reality.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevo...

Jerry Kraus

6/25/2014 7:04:00 PM

0

On Wednesday, June 25, 2014 1:49:28 PM UTC-5, Rich Rostrom wrote:
> David Tenner <dtenner@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> Mr. Tenner, you're wrestling a pig.
>
>
>
> Mr. Kraus has a limited connection to historical reality.
>
> --
>
> The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.
>
>
>
> http://originalvelvetrevo...

Rich, if you're implying that there was no significant confrontation between North and South prior to 1860, you're the one with a limited connection to historical reality.

Most historians accept that the Civil War was all but inevitable following the Mexican-American War, and existed in a simmering form throughout the 1850's, throughout the U.S..